Also you are contradicting yourself: "Ability to move around Bitcoin isn't affected" contradicts "Moving $3 in Bitcoin doesn't make much sense either. The blockchain is a limited resource."
The problem is that bitcoin (or any blockchain) cannot be a commercial payments system AND an efficient store of value both at once since the two objectives have priorities which are in conflict.
For a start, the purpose of a payment system is to clear trades, not to settle them and as such the commercial realm is adequately catered for by worldwide payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard. There is anything a blockchain can improve on there - even in terms of fees, because the merchant isn't paying those fees to clear the trade, they're paying for access to a massive customer base.
Secondly, it doesn't matter what you make the blocksize - 2 Mb, 16 Mb 32 Mb. It will still get full and still be spammable. Paying a $3 fee to transact on it isn't comparable to paying 2% fee with Visa because the merchant is purchasing different things in each case:
• with Visa they aren't paying for realtime settlement, with bitcoin they are
• with Bitcoin they aren't paying for access to a majority client base, with Visa they are
• with Bitcoin they aren't paying for merchant services, with bitcoin they are
So with bitcoin it's all about settlement, not trade which is why its technical properties should be prioritised around monetary security, stability and confidence rather than commercial versatility.
Against that background, $3 is nothing for moving an asset that is fundamentally a deflationary store of value and that has liquidity worldwide.
Poll
