This is a bit unhinged.
Typical central planner hubris.
So effectively one can replace the fee market with a market that favors the most centralization they have the lowest costs (as thats all network income would pay for). This may be true, but it's not interesting-- since if a highly centralized system were desirable there are more efficient and secure ways to achieve one.
You're making assumptions about the preferences of current and future Bitcoin users which are not warranted.
If the world wants a system which can conduct transactions at the lowest possible price, then the world will not choose to use Bitcoin, regardless of what you try to shape their behaviour with arbitrary protocol rules.
If, on the other hand, there is any demand for censorship resistance and money with a predictable supply, then that demand will express itself as a willingness to pay some price to obtain it.
If Bitcoin is going to fail because there is not enough demand for what it provides that people are willing to pay what it costs to obtain it, then Bitcoin is going to fail.
If that's what's going to happen, then no amount of tampering with the price discovery process can change that outcome, and indeed will only be counterproductive to any chances at success Bitcoin does have.