work together to bring back the idea of an individual being best serviced by looking after the group and the group looking after the individual.
To add to the above. If what you mean here is that society puts the rights of the individual first, and that each individual will up hold the rights of every other individual (coincidentally forming a group) then I agree, and it is the most important part of the post. Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers motto all for one and one for all (Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno), was born out of this idea that individual rights need to be up held, (stemming from political discourse in France in his fathers time) he probably influenced by Switzerland too. This is in direct opposition however, to rights arbitrarily given to a group, because if this is done it will inevitably exclude some portion of individuals from within that same group; hence disabling the group to be able to protect the rights of an individual. This is why intersectional & identitarian politics, only "works" (I use that term loosely) in an authoritarian environment. It doesn't work it has to be forced.
The above would fine all by itself, however imagine two people on a see-saw over a pit of crocodiles, they are free to move any way they want; if they were smart they would quite quickly find equilibrium, and pay careful consideration to future moves. Then add the non aggression principle and the utility of government becomes even less and maybe we might be heading in the right direction.
Problem being, nobody wants this now. It is too difficult for an individual, to do anything for oneself these days; I thought this idea will increase in popularity, but it is being discarded for collectivism or tribalism as you put it. For example we currently are witnessing a backlash from the right because the ultra left went to far and collectivism wins either way.
But the tribal rules may still be able to hold as the view of what is best for the entire group is in line with what is best for the individual.
This one, I disagree with, as it is not possible for this ("view of what is best for the entire group is in line with what is best for the individual.") to be
what is best for all individuals; therefore those individuals will be discriminated against, or forced to comply (violating the non aggression principle). Either way this twists, when you put a group first, the result will be an authoritarian environment. Worse because whoever sets the groups rules, will claim moral justification against those that are "out of the group".
FUD is the reason that education is so important, and guidance be given to people to learn and understand. Some people who don't know what is going to happen for a given action; i.e. everyone should know what will likely happen in a right wing authoritarian government? well we also know what will happen in a left wing authoritarian government (free one-way helicopter rides) and neither are good and people don't know what they are heading towards.