Both Nietzsche and Stirner were right about one thing:
> That freedom to individualism makes most happy.
But both were wrong in the assumed "main drive" and the vices to satisfy it:
> It is not the "will to power", ...
> and possibly asocial emotionalism is harmful to all.
All living beings must survive, be able to develop (mainly to attract mates) and ensure the survival of their offspring.
The emotional reward system has evolved for this purpose.
All living beings are therefore driven by the "will to happiness" (through fun and the creation of reasons for contentment as independently as possible).
(Specifically in humans, the highest motive was already called "eudaemonia" in ancient times.)
In order to achieve this, "strategic" values and virtues are necessary:
Most fundamental is the biological necessity to protect one's physical health.
This establishes the fundamental right to one's own body, which can be described as "inalienable self-ownership".
This implies the mutual obligation not to initiate harmful violence and to restrict one's own self-determination largely to consensual relationships.
"Counter-politically", this would manifest itself in a gradual introduction of a ban on aggression ("non-aggression principle").
In order for this to be introduced in a socially acceptable manner, the existential foundations for it must remain secure...
This would also be the case in a liberal meritocracy:
> Paternalistic basic security ("social welfare"), and...
This makes it possible to create the educational and biological prerequisites for survival and prosperity in a largely non-violent social order.
(Keyword: "Liberty empowerment".)
For harmonious coexistence and cooperation, it is necessary in all phases:
> Act mutually both indirectly and directly ("moral reciprocity").
> Only make offers of voluntary acceptance without any obligation to do so.
> Develop and cultivate your ethical, cognitive and performative skills. ("Triad of trustworthiness.")
> And also to help proactively in the medical ethical sense.
Basic security is particularly important for economically dependent people (such as the young, the old and the ill).
This still requires so-called "positive rights" (which unfortunately can only be financed most reliably through tax collection).
(Supposed "anarcho-capitalist purists" who demand isolated extreme positions are only intended to damage sensible reform proposals such as this one.)
This is why I would like to call such a program "paternalistic voluntarism".
It remains to be seen how it would be received. I hope that these ideas will one day be heard (in an unadulterated form).