"The question" was
It appears that the "n" was finger fumbled out of the theoretical "In a case where "no one would talk to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__," it would be incredibly difficult for anyone who owned __[fill in the blank]__ to "network" with anyone else who owned __[fill in the blank]__ - wouldn't it?".
However you are still evading the question (which I will rephrase) of "When no one will do 'X' and everyone will express disapproval for anyone who would do 'X', is it NEEDED to establish a law to outlaw 'X'?" - please note the emphasized word.
In a country where the people don't shoot police officers (on a "routine" basis) and where the police officers don't shoot the people (on a "routine" basis), is it NEEDED for the police to carry guns and wear bulletproof vests at all times?
"The question" was asked by me of you, and not the other way around.
Are you going to take a stab at actually answering the actual question that was actually asked, or are we going to continue with you providing non-responsive answers and then me asking the same question over and over until you finally do? (I once asked the same question over 20 consecutive times of the same witness in a trial before getting an actual answer, the answer wasn't all that helpful to my client's case, but the fact that the witness kept dodging and weaving in an effort to avoid answering a fairly simple question most certainly destroyed that witness' credibility and DID assist my client's case.