I have heard of the duality of חומרה and קולה. For some people a particular application of halacha is considered a חומרה and to others a קולה. This ideology seems to only apply on an individual basis. I can understand, in absolute terms (all things being equal) we can define things as being a חומרה and קולה. However, is there (perhaps 'poetic') license to use these two terms differently in individual cases.
Let me give some examples:
Some would be 'מחמיר' to only eat a certain of the 'best' hechsherim whereas others would be meikel to use less preferable hechsherim. Could one say that, due to financial difficulties of purchasing expensive good hechsherim, he is being 'מחמיר' to specifically not forgo the financial obligations he has towards supporting his family.
Another example. Some are machmir not to hold by eruvim, due to them potentially being invalid (whether this is a valid stance or not, I have lived in communities that don't hold by eruvim for exactly this reason). Could one say that he is being machmir to use the eiruv in order to improve oneg shabbat, facilitating his family going to shul, etc.
Although this may be merely poetic license I feel it highlights misconceptions that 'doing more' or 'being more restricting' falls under the category of חומרה and is more desirable. I would love to promulgate a more inclusive Judaism that doesn't castigate those for positively applying the law לחומרה (!) in the opposite sense.
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner has a number of responses in his sefarim in this sense e.g. he says that we should be מחמיר not to doubt the words of the Rabbanut HaRashit i.e. eat their kashrut, rather than be מחמיר to only eat mehadrin. He also brings heater mechira in the same way, that we should eat it and be מחמיר to support farmers and the settling of Israel rather than be מחמיר to doubt the authority of the Rabbanut HaRashit, etc.
Do any others speak about the use of חומרה and קולה in this way?