It's a bit strange to me, because several of the theorists who are supposed to be beloved across the ideological spectrum, even (especially!) on the right, also

It's a bit strange to me, because several of the theorists who are supposed to be beloved across the ideological spectrum, even (especially!) on the right, also noticed this problem. One of F.A. Hayek's concerns through a number of his writings was: what about the risks common to all people, such as the risk you'll end up disabled and unable to work, or that you'll contract life-threatening cancer? The traditional solution was a form of "personal responsibility" that actually becomes collectivism: southern-European and Middle-Eastern families have large extended families who are expected to effectively provide the insurance policy. If you fall seriously ill, your family clan, religious sub-sect, or other such collective membership entity covers for you. To Hayek, this was not in keeping with the ideals of individual liberty. Instead, he preferred a state that assured everyone basic personal rights independent of their family/clan/religion, including both things like enforcement of contracts (even if you're not from an important enough family to enforce your own contracts) and protection against the threat of indigence (even if you're not from a close-knit religion that takes care of its own).