1 - It is no abuse for a store to determine the price it will sell or where it will sell.

2 - They are not forcing you to buy, they aren't allowing you to buy from another store. Which is different on essence. Since you can just refuse to buy at all.

3 - Yes sure, all the democracies work perfectly fine and all the laws are the will of its people, and they certainly know them all.

4 - I'm not making it any hard, why don't you take your time and also demand that a grocery store on Italy sell and ship a bread to germany?

4 - I'm not making it any hard, why don't you take your time and also demand that a grocery store on Italy sell and ship a bread to germany?

Lol, what kind of accusatory post is this? You never asked?

The only things I ever order are games, books or figurines, and I don't remember how much I had to pay, but we get tolls in Sweden ALL the time. You don't in Germany? Hey, good for you, congrats. Why are you acting as if this is some suspicious shit? I have to pay tons most of the time when I import, regardless of where it's from, and I know several other people who do to, not just in Sweden.

I am not in the EU but this is how I understand the situation using your Italian grocery store analogy: 
1.  Italian grocery store sells bread online and ships to bread lovers throughout Italy. 
2.  German bread lover says, "This bread is the best ever, send me some please!  I will pay the extra shipping, obviously."
3.  Grocery store says, "Fuck you!  But you can visit our partner website BreadForGermans.com where they sell the same bread for 50% more."
4.  EU says, "This is a single market.  Sell him his bread at regular price." 

Well your posts simply suck in this thread. Read them again.

You act like a smart-ass in the first.

You dodged the question when I asked you why you think that there are fees in a customs union. Your stupid answer "duh because I had to pay fees" is not very explanatory. I already assumed as much.

And in this post you don't even try to answer all of my questions. Is it really a toll fee you had to pay or maybe something completely different?
Who told you to pay it? Your local customs office?

It IS suspicious, HIGHLY suspicious. Maybe this link will help you:
http://www.tullverket.se/en/private/receivingorsendingagift/orderinggoodsonline.4.792224361590183a4d34492.html

"Online shopping from another EU-country

Goods bought within the EU do not need to be presented to Swedish Customs.

However, each country in the EU has the right to seize goods under certain circumstances for reasons of environmental protection and public health and security. Examples of such goods are arms, syringes, needles, medications, endangered animals and plants, wine and liquor."

My guess is that you order stuff from non EU countries or areas within the EU that aren't part of the European tax territory (like Guernsey or Jersey) and therefore have to pay a toll fee (in the case of Guernsey and Jersey it would be VAT and not a toll fee.).
Many British online retailers ship from these islands.
Otherwise I don't believe you one bit, but if you like to pay fees that you shouldn't be paying, more power to you.

Which is basically why everyone is happy its going away, except for DonFerrari for some reason.

Are we speaking the same language here??

1- As we agreed, the store can sell the product for whatever price it wishes. And it sells wherever it wants to sell. This regulation does nothing to negate that

2-"they aren't allowing you to buy from another store"They can't forbid a EU citizen to buy a product from a different EU country. That's the whole point of the regulation. Since you're from Brazil maybe this example will help. It would be like an online shop in Rio de Janeiro blocking users from Sao Paulo from purchasing products on their shop if they detect their IP address is from Sao Paulo.

3- Irrelevant point, no one here is talking about perfection, just the rule of law that we all agree to abide by in civilized societies. 

4- Another false equivalency. Are you doing it on purpose? The correct example would be a grocery store in Italy denying service to a german citizen when he tries to pay for the loaf of bread in their store.

I am not in the EU but this is how I understand the situation using your Italian grocery store analogy: 
1.  Italian grocery store sells bread online and ships to bread lovers throughout Italy. 
2.  German bread lover says, "This bread is the best ever, send me some please!  I will pay the extra shipping, obviously."
3.  Grocery store says, "Fuck you!  But you can visit our partner website BreadForGermans.com where they sell the same bread for 50% more."
4.  EU says, "This is a single market.  Sell him his bread at regular price." 

Transforming the phone call into a website doesn't change the point either, the sole point is made on the unnecessary imposition from government. That people seem to think will make everything better.

So, basically, what you are saying is that it's OK for businesses that are open to the public to discriminate against certain members of the public who want to be customers based on political boundaries.  For instance, if your neighborhood grocery store charged more to anyone who lived outside the neighborhood, with no way for them to "get a membership" other than by moving to the neighborhood. 

What if your local store said "OK, members of the PSB party have to pay twice as much"—OK?  (United for Brazil coalition, I picked one blindly from Wikipedia)

What about other forms of discrimination?  "No bread for black people"—OK?  "No bread for Jews"—OK? 

For me even though it is biggotry and moronic, it's their business and if they want to lose money doing it the government shouldn't intervene... but all customers decide to stop buying there because of it, them I have no issues.

Business must be punished and rewarded by the value they bring to their customers, not by government big heads.

That's just great. It really shows the lengths anarcho capitalists are willing to go to defend their weird ass world view. The previous comments about government intervention should have been clear enough that this was the point you were trying to push. But thank you anyway for making it absolutely transparent now.

There's no common ground for discussion here