Not long ago the great sociobiologist E.O Wilson affirmed group-selection over individual selection---as the Boston Globe put it: “Wilson is not arguing that members of certain species don't sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their relatives. They do. But it's his position that kinship and relatedness aren't essential in causing the development of advanced social behaviors like altruism ---that the reason such behaviors catch on is that they're evolutionarily advantageous on a group level. That socially advanced organisms end up favoring their kin, Wilson argues, is a byproduct of their group membership, not the cause.” Research backs up this position. I would agree with this as long as it is also understood that group-selection, altruism, and conservatism have favored genetically related groups over more distantly related groups. There is a natural continuum of altruism, concern for the world comes after concern for ones own land and people.
What does this do for individualism and libertarianism? Individualism often leads to hedonism and general selfishness, all passions and activity become submerged in the individual, which damages group altruism, and this in turn damages individuals. Yes, the individual is important, especially innovative individuals, and yes, it's easier for individuals to survive now, but nobody can rightly say that the individual can survive for long alone without the group. And we must also mention the loss of foundational ethics based in altruism.
Public morality is legitimate, private morality is not nearly enough, so those who say if you don't like the program turn it off, are short-sighted and even irresponsible. Conservatism is not really a negation of individualism, it just puts it in its natural place. But I would probably still vote for libertarian Rand Paul, given the choices. This also affirms those who, like myself, see ethnopluralism within many small distinct states, virtual ethnostates, as the most natural social configuration, in line with real human nature.