Answer

The economic right sees the rights of the individual as a supreme value and does not want the nation to interfere in one’s life except where it is essential. But when it is essential, the public can intervene. Moreover, the right-wing claim is that the invisible hand will also bring the public condition to an optimum. So you are right that there is a tension, but there is no contradiction.
Note that the value of equality, which underlies the economic-social left, also places the individual at the center and sees the public as his servant, meant to care for the condition of each individual. From that perspective, you may perhaps understand the right-wing position, according to which the public is not the servant of individuals; rather, they are its servants. Therefore there is no reason for it to intervene between individuals for their own benefit, but only for its own benefit.
In short, the right opposes public intervention in the life of individual A for the sake of individual B, not because the individual is more important than the public, but because the public’s role is not to care for individuals. The right does support intervention in the life of the individual for the sake of the public and the public character. By the way, this is the focal point of my two columns about Feiglin.