I wouldn't say the idea is "flawed" because it's on the spectrum with a number of things that are or have been in game. Like the point that one of the other threads about this made: optimization and player choice have NEVER gone hand-in-hand. Players (that care about it) have always had to choose between being optimal and doing what they would prefer. The real 'issue' with this one is that the choice is more 'permanent' (and thus consequential) than others.
When people say they want "choices" they mostly mean "I want MY preferences to be optimal" or "I want choices to be basically meaningless so I can change quickly and easily when 'optimal' does." You are right about the community: despite players SAYING repeatedly that they want 'meaningful choices,' players tend to also be very resistant to choices actually having any consequences. Not always the same players of course. As for me, I'll consider it a good job if balance is reasonably close, with each ability having certain content or situations where it's more useful.