Simple answer, there are lots of things I don't agree with but they are done anyway. When those things can be shown to a benefit to our society at large, that makes them easier to accept.
OK so let's group these in two or three levels or degrees
A. Low level imposition
we don't like paying traffic tickets ourselves but agree to use this system
B. Medium or higher level imposition that causes protests
EX: Prolife tolerating prochoice laws
Prolife believers that abortion is murder have to tolerate laws, decisions and actions that keep reinforcing otherwise.
So the prochoice position allows both prochoice and prolife to be practiced freely.
But every time a law is passed that forces prolife believers to pay taxes into abortion or birth control against their beliefs, they have to pay for lawyers, lobbyists and media outreach to push to DEFEND their beliefs they feel are already infringed upon, after the fact. so this causes an undue burden that is not on prochoice people who already have the laws in their favor, while the other side is constantly on the defense. This is not equal but is tolerated.
NOTE: even liberal activists who may tolerate abortion but DO NOT believe in the death penalty but believe THAT is murder, experience medium to high levels of imposition when the govt carries this out which they believe to be unconstitutional, as either cruel or unusual punishment or imposing or abusing authority without equal due process and defense.
C. Highest level imposition causing lawsuits and arguments for impeachment/secession
Where opposition is so great, people will NOT tolerate laws imposed, but consider this unlawful and a breach of govt duty and process, where people should be removed from office.
This is the level where the ACA mandates did the equivalent of passing a law as opposed to Constitutional principles of opponents as violating the Second Amendment.
PMH I still think you are only talking about impositions on levels A or B.
Can you name something that "other people would tolerate by their beliefs or think is more good than bad" but which YOU would start protesting on levels B or C, calling for separation from govt or removal of abusive officials from office, etc.
1. if you can name something, then that would be fair comparison instead of
trying to compare to lower levels like A.
2. With level B, I believe for some people, the issues with prolife in abortion/death penalty opposition can be as intolerable as with the objections to ACA. however with abortion/death penalty these things that people don't believe in are CHOICES that can be prevented from being imposed; with the ACA the mandates are imposed, even if you do pay for your health care other ways besides insurance, that freedom no longer prevents the penalty from being applied, so you can't avoid it without giving up liberty to pay other ways.
3. how about level C?
Can you imagine a law that would benefit more people, but YOU would object to imposing?
EX:
a. what if some party decided to crackdown on all deadbeat parents that don't pay child support and create a welfare burden on others. And passed a law where all fathers or parents were required to buy insurance, or show proof of ability to support a child, or pay fines into a govt acct to cover the cost of their kids up to age 18, starting from (a) the point of having sex (b) or the point of child birth.
the insurance could also cover any legal issues the parents are responsible for until their children turn 18; so if they have high risks their rates are higher, and this covers the cost of incarceration, prosecution, courts, damages, etc. in case of conviction or lawsuits.
b. what if the govt mandates on insurance and universal coverage required everyone to go through spiritual diagnosis and healing for unresolved or unforgiven conflicts, abuses, or issues that otherwise lead to mental or physical illness, or legal problems that cost more.
if this could be shown to reduce the incidence and costs of crime, disease, abuse and addiction, would you be okay with this being 'mandated' by govt as a requirement to reduce the burden on govt, taxpaying citizens, and/or society?
c. Rottweiler pointed out, what if someone passed a law requiring all citizens to carry guns and be trained to use them lawfully as with police. where studies have shown that arming all people in a district does lower the risk or rate of crime. (my version of citizens enforcing laws equally is not with guns but with signed contracts: to ALLOW districts to pass ordinances by consent of all residents in their district to civic association standards where residents AGREE to pay all costs including administration expenses incurred by any premediated crimes they are convicted of or else forfeit CITIZENSHIP. i believe this can be done voluntarily. But what if state or federal govt decided to impose it by mandate? that all citizens MUST sign agreement upon turning legal age to pay all costs if they commit crimes, or else agree to give up citizenship, get deported, and trade places with immigrants who agree to follow laws and pay for costs under those terms.)
would you agree to follow such a mandate as the above?
if none of these bother you, can you name something that would be as sacreligous to you as the ACA mandates are to Constitutional believers in free market and limited govt?
