> Nobody is denying it costs money, the problem is it's not proportional to the value they add, nor their costs.

The value they add is much greater than their costs. People who deny this lack a lot of imagination to ponder how inconvenient things could be without credit and debit cards.

But we don't need to imagine: If Visa and Mastercard didn't add more value than they cost, then merchants wouldn't accept them. It is still 100% voluntary for a merchant to decide if they want to accept cards or not. Which is a freedom they should have. These cards aren't legal tender.

▲

sinker a day ago | parent [-]

If merchants didn't accept them, they would go out of business. How is that not obvious? Technically there a choice. In reality, you have no choice, and no recourse, and you can't outcompete these companies either. The idea that you can just decide to block CC payments and survive is fantasy. You're essentially signing a death warrant for your business. That's not any meaningful form of "freedom."

> If Visa and Mastercard didn't add more value than they cost, then merchants wouldn't accept them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy

▲

carlosjobim 15 hours ago | parent [-]

You are seriously arguing that because businesses have to give customers what they want that these businesses are oppressed? I'm not going to bite, because there is a very clear difference between doing something because somebody else is forcing you to, and doing something out of choice and free will because it benefits you.

You are trying to pervert words and the concept of freedom in a quite uncanny way - for nobody's benefit. Most people and business owners aren't living within a mental prison where they oblige themselves to min-max everything in life and make all decisions according to a fantasy of rationality. Many of them refuse to accept CC payments, even if it might be in their best interest to.

	▲	sinker 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> "Many of them refuse to accept CC payments" No they don't. We're not talking about lemonade stands here. Business owners don't have a choice. They must use CC processors or else lose their business. That's the point. You're shoehorning a philosophical definition of freewill into a context where it doesn't apply. Given that consumers and businesses have "freewill" or "freedom" to make any financial decision, then by your logic there are no bounds a company can possibly transgress. Why do you think we have anti-trust laws, or consumer protection laws, or the FDA, or have litigated against monopolies in the past, or have the host of many other things which protects consumers from being taken advantaged of?