No we're not. Accepting mandates doesn't somehow force everyone to automatically accept anything any politician claims or does in the future. That's not how anything works.
That's how everything works, it's called a precedent.
Because it's been the justification from day 1: "not overwhelm hospitals".
You're conflating mandates for which there are precedents with completely novel and exotic government actions.
You specifically called out the government making you quit smoking or forcing you to eat better in your original post.
And it's you who mentionned "completely novel and exotic government actions", to which I point out that it's already happened with lockdowns.
There's nothing in history that resemble what has happened in those last 2 years, whether you agree or not won't change that fact.
I don't feel like you're engaging in good faith, so I'm going to go ahead and quit responding.
There was a similar situation with mandatory masks, and then loud anti-mask protests which resulted in the lifting of some mask mandates.
What happened over the past two years has happened before, and will probably happen again. You can find examples of lockdowns in other pandemic eras. Venice partially locked down in 1575 due to the plague.
You may disagree with lockdowns, but there's plenty of precedent. Your "fact" is incorrect.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-citie...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/breaking-poin...
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/historical-precedents-lock...
A lockdown at such a scale never happened before covid. Your "counter-fact" is incorrect.
It's justification for the sake of allaying that commentator's fears. Most people that support the mandate support it because it makes sense and they've thought about it. In fact, I'd wager that those who are against the mandate are more often susceptible to being brainwashed than those who are enthusiastically for it
Interesting theory.