It is a well-known failure mode to apply concepts from everyday life to questions of governance - from treating the government budget like a household budget to expecting contrition from guilty countries, like we would from individuals.
Part of this is not thinking enough about the problem. But I think it can also arise from a desire for a consistent moral philosophy. And I think this cuts both ways - useful tools for governing collective life become harmful when applied to personal life.
Freedom of speech? Makes a lot of sense in the public sphere, less in a group of friends.
Harm reduction (in general, not specifically with respect to drug use)? With someone you know well, you probably have a better chance of helping them make good decisions than the government would.
The benefits of competition? It’s great for making prices lower, but it’s not nearly as effective when applied on a small level.
Providing equal opportunities? A good ideal, and necessary for public life, but impossible to practice in personal life.
In your personal life, you are:
This all sounds really obvious, but I still think that, in general, I (and maybe others) tend to try to hard to reconcile concepts from collective life with my own everyday experiences. Overall, I think I’d be better off forbidding sharing of concepts between the personal and the political.