No, that's exactly what private property means.

Yes, I can. Convenient that no one even suggested that, though.

LOL, no. Our public education was created to decatholicize the children of immigrants.

Sorry, but no. What puts a country on a map is that it's there. It is about geography. A remote history has nothing to do with the people living there now, and for all the negative coverage Florida has had in the European press, it is ridiculous to be ignorant to its location.

Except that that also rebrands progressivism to mean anti-progressive or conservative (in the classical sense).

I don't know what species you are, but when humans masturbate, the ejaculate does not contain fetuses.

I don't see how not voting is somehow “validated” by running for office (or needing “validation” for that matter). Running for office and not voting is just stupid (and I make no excuses for that).

Because someone online purporting that one should feel guilty about not doing something is patronizing and irritating. How does it remove guilt?

I have a right to worship a lint roller dipped in macaroni and cheese and to vote. As the productivity of the latter approaches the former, the likelihood of me voting decreases.

Well-understood adjectives sure, but most of them, when applied to political principles, are not so well understood as some like to think.

Note that to the world outside of the United Kingdom, Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democratic parties seem indistinguishable, and outside of France, the Parti Socialist and UMP seem indistinguishable, and an outside observer would struggle to identify key points of contention between the Australian Labor and Liberal parties, etc. This phenomenon, that outsiders see the major political parties in another country as indistinguishable, is not unique to the United States. The concerns of public debate of one nation nearly always seem trivial to another.

That's complete bullshit.

Left and right, when used to refer to political beliefs and associations, are relative terms. That's why they're apt metaphors. Without a singular frame of reference, they're meaningless. (And, if you have the sense to see the metaphors for what they are, disoriented. Then you can look at individual policy issues, and realize that we have two fascist parties.)

I did not misread it. I did not address sustainability, only availability. However, since you brought the point up, market expectations of future supply (i.e., production sustainability) are part of demand.

Keeping the air clean is a transaction, though (or rather a series of transactions). It requires exchanges of value (trade-offs). The positive and negative in externalities is not about some perceived social value; in that sense, economics, like any other serious scientific discipline, is value free. (Well, unless you're Paul Krugman.)

Using the word transaction was probably not the best; in economics, it has a meaning different from its common use.

From the Wikipedia article, you cited:

In economics, an externality (or transaction spillover) is a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices[1], incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit.

The negative in negative externality is not a value judgment in the sense of moral or ethical values (for which economics, like any scientific discipline, has none), but an assessment of increased cost (including lost profit or lost potential profit) from an action to which you are not party. A positive externality is decreased cost or increased profit from an action to which you are not party.

Some examples:
1) I run a café and someone just saw the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, and now my café is full every day for three weeks; my positive externality is my competitors' negative externality.

2) The pious Marians in the previous example crowd out my regular customers and once they're gone, some of my previous regulars don't return, a positive externality for my competitors.

While the same action does not always have positive and negative externalities, and they do not in any sense balance, the same action, decision, or market influence can act as both a negative and positive externality.

Because of the political process though, the factory operator does not have control over the decision to pollute certain substances; he was not given that decision: the very definition of an externality; it most definitely is an increased cost and therefore a negative externality for him. I'm not saying he should have that decision; I'm saying he doesn't have the decision. It is external to him.

Malthusianism: scaring the shit out of ignorant do-gooders for more than two centuries now.

No, fuck that. They can stay; I'm going.