Store them in FLAC, not listen to them on your phone in FLAC. For that, you want to be in MP3 or Vorbis.

No.

It's clear that we were not on the same page about what we were discussing. You made the claim that free markets are impossible ("the whole free market thing is a purely theoretical model"), but now it seems that you're just arguing that they don't work. There's a difference. Free markets are very nearly possible, or if you believe government can be completely eradicated, are possible. Whether they work or not is something that I wasn't arguing.

It's great how you've been modded "Insightful," even though you provided no insight and just regurgitated the classic "but without the government X people would lose out" argument. Look, you can apply that to any argument. Without government producing shoes, poor people wouldn't have shoes! Anyway, let's take this step by step, since not doing so would be hypocritical:

First off, rural roads are much cheaper to build than urban roads or highways, so there would be a lower barrier to the building of rural roads. Now, how much is someone willing to pay for a road? He's willing to pay as much value that road is worth it to him. If someone isn't willing to pay for the creation of a road to his property, then he thinks the benefit (his use of the road) is less than the cost of the road. The road will not be built if it's not worth it. If it is worth it, measured by willingness to pay, it will be built. Simple as that. Who are you to say that the government should take the money of others to finance the building of roads to serve people who don't even value the road enough to pay for it themselves? Yes, this creates pressure to move to more densely-packed areas, but aren't those more environmentally friendly anyway?

I was hoping that anyone interested enough would take the time to read the book. Otherwise, you're not looking to learn something, only to stir the waters on the internet and proclaim your unsupported opinion to the world. I wasn't linking to the summary. I was linking to the book. If you can't handle that one, how about something shorter. Maybe a chapter of a different book may be more accessible to you.

You would probably agree that monarchy wasn't a good thing, but every affluent country in the world had it (or something like it) at one point. Who are you to question monarchy? Or more simply: try to avoid the appeal to popularity.

Look, the definition is similar across multiple different sources. You can't say the free market is unrealistic by claiming that perfect competition doesn't exist (which that article seems to be attacking -- that's not the free market). All you need for a free market is voluntary exchange without government interference. That is: as long as the government stays out, you have a free market. Of course, the existence of government means that you will only approximate a free market (as it will necessarily distort the market), but we can't expect things to be perfect.

There are multiple reasons why roads should be privatized, and this is merely one of them. If a truck causes more congestion than a car, a private road would likely charge more for a truck, internalizing the cost of infrastructure for delivery.

I cases where discrimination pays well, people are willing to pay a premium to avoid having to deal with certain kinds of people (whatever type that may be). Those people are losing. Maybe the business can make a larger profit by catering to those people, but someone is losing in this bargain. However, as for the discriminated against, they are only losing the voluntary cooperation of the one selling the service, which they have no right to anyway -- voluntary transactions are called voluntary for a reason.

In short, someone always loses by restricting the group of people they trade with. It's kind of a messed up version of protectionism, where the defining factor is race, not nationality.

I think you need to double-check your definition of free market. It is unrelated to "an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry." I think you're thinking about perfect competition. For your convenience, here is a definition:

(Investopedia)

That's true. There are laws against it. However, that's not how it should be. As the owner of your property, you have the right to discriminate. This is the same reason why the flower arrangement case makes no sense; there is no reason anyone should be forced to buy or sell from anyone. Is that not freedom of association and protection of private property? In fact, the market relies on your ability to discriminate between products and services; labor and renting are only a few of those.

Now, unfair discrimination could be a problem, but there is no reason to make it illegal. If someone wants to hurt their own ability to do business, then let them. As Rothbard explains,

They are high. They're just not as high as other countries who get these things even more wrong than the United States. Of course, the OECD, which just spends all their time and money (tax-funded, by the way) talking about how much better life would be if taxes were higher, published the report. Heck, they want to create a global tax cartel to eliminate tax competition. I don't question the report's accuracy. It's just irrelevant. Some people, including myself, believe taxes in the US are too high. 32% percent of my income (according to the report) is way too much to fund an institution whose only legitimate job is protection of its citizens from violent confrontations with each other and foreign aggressors. What other countries do is irrelevant.

I can't verify or deny that as far as Sweden specifically, but immigrants tend to be less violent than native populations, so Sweden stats would have to be substantially different from the US statistics for it to be true.

I can second the recommendation of The Three-Body Problem. Great Sci-Fi, pretty good at stretching the mind, creative, and it changes the way one thinks about SETI.

Well, they just provide a better product or a better price on their own. If they can't do that, then there's no need for a "small business owner or individual" to be attempting to enter that market, as Amazon must be doing a better job. If you're worried about a natural monopoly, then take a look at the two monopoly chapters in The Machinery of Freedom, and that will put your fears to rest. In short, any attempt to abuse market power will lead to Amazon being uncompetitive in the market -- which will eventually lead to its downfall. In the meantime, let's enjoy cheap products.

Actually, that was the best April Fools joke. It's one of the few I remember.

So, what's your point?

Is it that we should have a more educated populace? Public schools in the United States have been failures, even though Since World War II, inflation-adjusted spending per student in American public schools has increased by 663 percent. Obviously, more money isn't going to help, and that's all I hear from people who make claims like "It's the dummies."

Here's the real issue: we have people who don't have any interest in actually learning about the policies politicians support (of either party), and they have the reigns on power in a democracy. The likelihood that anyone will affect the outcome of an election is minuscule, so people vote for "civic duty" or the entertainment value of the event. No one is making a list of policies each politician is expected to support and calculating cost/benefit for each. Heck, most people know that politicians are bad at keeping their campaign promises, much less their "values."

The problem is not education. The problem is a system that allows people who have no interest in making a calculated choice to make a choice that is foisted everyone. You can't even claim that outcomes would be much better if everyone who voted was required to have a Master's degree.