In this case, the precedent would be *vaccine mandates*, not government-mandated kale with every meal.
You're conflating mandates for which there are precedents with completely novel and exotic government actions.
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.