[oneplane]

What he's saying is that you (konschubert) involved VISA in the transaction. And since VISA is a paid service, you were charged.

As for why you involved them, that is the actual issue at hand, because it's a choice, not something that was forced upon you. But the choice isn't the first one that comes to mind; the choice was between protecting consumers or protecting corporations. And in the US, corporations are better protected than consumers. To level that protection, you (a consumer) have to involve someone else (a corporation) to gain any practical protection.

If that method of protection wasn't needed, you'd be paying using a cheaper (or free) method where you'd be protected differently (i.e. not based on the money going from A to B, but based on the fact that you are a consumer and should thus be protected).

You could also go back to the first choice that might come to mind: protection. If you are not in a society that protects consumers directly, but you also don't want to pay a corporate provider for that protection, you could opt to forgo that protection.

[konschubert]

And what I (konschubert) am saying is: I would like to have more choices, as a customer and especially as a merchant, so I don’t have to pay visa 3% next time.

And I think this means there is opportunity for disruption.

[oneplane]

Creating those choices requires societal adjustment. It is not something that can be manufactured by a market, and as such is the purpose of government. Many examples of this exist in production all over the world, with high degrees of success.