This means that in practice people will just add sbin to PATH to get a somewhat usable system, which makes the division between bin and sbin useless.
Furthermore, on BSD derived systems binaries that should not be invoked by users directly (e.g., daemons) need to be stored in libexec.
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html
You may be thinking of the /bin and /usr/bin difference, though.
> Utilities used for system administration (and other root-only commands) are stored in /sbin, /usr/sbin, and /usr/local/sbin. /sbin contains binaries essential for booting, restoring, recovering, and/or repairing the system in addition to the binaries in /bin.
My memory is hazy but I recall the distinction being / vs /usr not /bin vs /sbin.
Having mnt be statically linked makes it much easier to recover that system.
The ideal of "/sbin for system tooling" isn't so much one of static vs dynamic but rather users accidentally finding system tools that don't work and sending email to the admin saying "mnt gives me a permission denied error" when they have no business running it.
But I have only ever seen historic references to that argument, from back when dynamic linking was scary and unreliable. I certainly have never encountered that situation in almost 25 years of using Linux.
$ file /sbin/* | grep "dynamically linked" | wc -l
325
$ file /sbin/* | grep -i "static" | wc -l
0
On Ubuntu focal, but Red Hat is similar.