I don't get think it's a fallacy at all.
And I think there's way more important ethical/unethical discussions to be had in today's world rather than wasting breath on a pedal builder who intentionally uses scarcity as their business model.
It's no more unethical than buying a '68 bassman for a song and flipping it 2 days later. It's just stuff. We're not bartering organ donations, shorting stock with pension funds or gobbling up massive amounts of affordable housing to turn into rentals. It's a Fn pedal.
There is access to the product but one has to do the work, as Harry did, and get on the list. If he chooses to, after having done the work, profit from his effort and buy groceries for a week or two off said profit, so be it. There's nothing unethical about it. Well, no more than the general capitalism as a whole.
Or, as I said before, buy and resale for the purchase price +incurred fees. But know whoever buys it will likely resale it for a profit at some point once they get that the only thing special about it is it's scarcity.
We could argue that value is had as it's been made by a master craftsman, there by it's origin adds to its intrinsic value. But we've seen the gut shots and the schematic.