Generally because stating it as "being forced to pay" often comes with a hint of it being wrong.

So the question could have been: do you think we should have free/socialized streets/hospitals? If not how do you think they are different?

I'm not the GP and think we probably should have more socialized hospitals.

But suggesting people who oppose publicly funded freeways should boycott publicly funded freeways is silly.

Imagine an office Christmas party where everyone is told to chip in for refreshments and then the refreshments will be whatever the boss ends up buying with that money. I may not like that arrangement, and may prefer to keep my money and bring my own food for myself. But, given that I have to pay in, I feel no need to abstain from eating the salad that the boss ends up providing using everyone's money.

Right, indeed I think that in this situation eating the salad does not prevent you from criticizing the party.

But this is the point, you were "forced" to pay for something and you would be okay with not getting it. If only the people who paid for the Christmas party were invited that would be okay.

Do you think this reasoning should also apply to streets and hospitals?

(I am specifically referring to using the word "forced" and the moral implication of using it)

> Do you think this reasoning should also apply to streets and hospitals?

Probably not.

But neither do I find it hypocritical to utilize publicly funded medicine (since you already paid in) while also opposing it (because you would be willing to forgo it to avoid paying in). The opposition is perhaps cruel or inconsiderate of others, but certainly not hypocritical. People who construe it as such are either confused or intellectually dishonest.

The forced was a parenthesis, you're focusing on the wrong aspect of the message.