The solution to dealing with inconsistencies in internal game logic isn't thinking less, its thinking more and demanding that designers do the same.
This implies you don't think the designers were "thinking more." I think this is not the case.
There are many benefits to giving non-magic classes per day abilities from obvious to not so obvious.
Game balance, for example is obvious. Since no one is disputing this one, nothing much needs to be said here.
Another benefit is giving non-mages good options. It irked me in 3e (and before) that the spellcaster got a huge bag of tricks while the non-spellcaster was reduced to different ways to say "I hit it."
Also there is Player narrative control (as I and others stated in the other thread). This is not obvious, but a very good reason (at least IMO). Most daily fighter powers are an offshoot of hit target hard and maybe affect him in some other way. This is not different then a basic attack it's just an abstraction of the player picking when the better hit occurs (many other games accomplish the same thing with fate or karma points). Yes there are exceptions (such as stances) but those can easily be seen as needing great mental control and therefore needing a rest (meditation, whatever) to reset your mind.
So "thinking more" may well lead to daily abilities not only being more fun but better modeling the abstract nature of combats and other interactions in the roleplaying world (at least from a player point of view).