There's two layers to your example: the part where the conveyor belt itself and its affordances[0] encourage certain group dynamics, which you can change through design (aka interaction design), and rules and regulations to discourage that without changing the affordance of the conveyor belt (the enforcing of good behaviour that you mention).
For example, to really speed things up you would need to parallelize: use multiple shorter conveyor belt loops, each handling with luggage from different sections of a plane (say seat 1 to 15, 16 to 30, etc). That requires organisational overhead though. It also wouldn't work in situations where everyone in the front of the plane had check in luggage, and only a handful of people in the back.
But that presume we want to optimise time for luggage pick-up. If we go back to the crowding behaviour you mentioned, the issue is everyone wanting to stand next to the belt, and close to the point where luggage is thrown on it.
The former can be solved by maximising conveyor belt length vs surface area by making it "snake" more, more people can stand next to it in the same area. However, lengthening the belt makes it take longer for luggage to move all the way around it, and you can't speed it up too much without making it difficult to grab the luggage. The second can be mitigated by having multiple spots through which luggage is thrown on the belts.
... you know what, now that I think about it, baggage carousel design could make for a fun little Indy game a la Freeways or Minimetro[1][2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance
I think of it every time I stand at one of those coveyer belts to pick up luggage in an airport and the crowd slowly creeps in closer, each person trying to get a better view by standing in front of someone else, who then does the same.
Always fascinating to observe the group dynamics and the designs (like a painted line to show you how far back to stand) used to try to informally enforce the norm that helps everyone get their case easily.
I'm not sure you can abandon every good idea that's been abused, even if it's got a weird origin story. But I've not personally witnessed it being used to support privatization, I can see how someone would get annoyed if they kept seeing that happen.