There seem to be multiple fallacies all wrapped up into one class of response there. Just on a cursory glance:
... and probably a few more.
The "Christian bridge" example leads me to think that you are focussing on the "single cause" aspect here.
Yet-you-participate-in-society fallacy? Based on https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat
Not an answer to your question, but a more general point:
If your question must have political examples, you are much more likely to foster good conversation if you can make your examples be from a variety of positions rather than all from the same one. It demonstrates that you're not trying to score political points on an issue, shows that you can consider multiple sides of an issue, and avoids triggering a bunch of defensive comments from people who disagree with you. I'd recommend substituting an example like this one for one of yours:
'So you say capitalism is horrible and must be destroyed - on the iPhone made by a corporation.'
I suspect there is a good name for that situation. However, if there isn't one I submit "Don't bite the hand that fed you" fallacy.
But it also seems like there is an element of an assumption of no counter-factual possible underlying the claim.
I failed to identify whether this is a well-known fallacy, I would appreciate it if someone tells me what this is called.
The fallacy normally goes like this:
I see you are very happy to criticize the government! Now go back to your place using the road that the government built for you!
So you say capitalism is horrible and must be destroyed - on the iPhone made by a corporation.
You are being an hypocrete criticizing public education because you went to a public school and did your studies thanks to the State, that financed your education
In all cases, the fallacy is assuming that if no public entity had created the environment allowing an individual to do something (or benefit from some advantage), no one else would have.
If there is no name for this fallacy I would suggest calling it the Christian bridge fallacy. I heard this example from Sam Harris. I don't remember his literal words but it goes like this;
Some historians argue that we must thank the Church for the bridges built in Europe during the Middle Ages. However, this is wrong: the Church built those bridges basically because they were the only ones around with power; if they hadn't done it, someone else would have done it.
In my examples, the same thing applies. I might have been able to study in a public school thanks to the government, but if that weren't the case, I would have probably studied anyway, only in a different way.
Please notice one important thing too: There might be some cases where this sort of argument is not a fallacy but a real objection.