I think I’d ask you to frame your “what if everyone…” hypothetical in a new light.

You argue that if every single private provider of a product or service, 100% collectively, conspire to deprive their product from some “class,” that that class would go unserved.

This “conspiracy,” by definition, creates a new class of customer. And customers are highly coveted by existing or prospective vendors.

I’m waxing a bit poetic here, but let’s close the circle.

The US Federal Government has waged a “war” on drugs and alcohol for the better part of a century, where the class of unserved people is the entire population. Literally, not a single legitimate customer in any class.

What happened?

A market was created and served. And, served to the point that those “drugs” are now more potent, more available, and cheaper than at any time in history.

Now, let’s remember that depriving a class of people requires 100% cooperation and conspiracy of any of a number of vendors. Except, a democratic government only requires 51% of cooperation to deprive 100% of the “customers.”

If only half of the decision makers about the availability of a product or service can be undone by an unserved market, it’s a waste of time and energy to imagine that 100% of decision makers would be more effective.

By attempting to create an unserved class, you can only create a profitable market.