I also often believe non-perfect things I do not like should be banned, regardless of whether the justification for that ban is epistemically sound. But then I

I also often believe non-perfect things I do not like should be banned, regardless of whether the justification for that ban is epistemically sound. But then I think about the law of unintended consequences (or from a more optimistic/fun angle, the perspective of "Optimal Gameplay"), like how the people I am inconveniencing while blindly maximizing my group's fine-grained personal enjoyment may seek revenge (consciously or otherwise) when the time arises where they happen to be the ones who hold power of any sort, such as the decision to comply with public health recommendations, as just one example among many, many thousands. Sometimes my (or others, including those of The Experts) mind counters with attractive, rhetorical stories/memes to counter this approach, but I endeavour to apply critical consideration to those lest I mistake them for shared/primary reality. I have no idea how well I perform at this, but my intuition is that it is better than if I did not try at all, which seems to be the default approach in our culture afaict.