A major part of egoism is actually a union of egoists. It's not like we aren't social beings, or that we are unaffected by others and are unaffected by our effect on others. Regardless of any person's beliefs, humans in general are empathetic and gregarious.

Egoists might align with anarchism but I don't think that most egoists even think much about how to improve "society" itself. To generalize egoists is, in general, a bad idea, though, because it's a very generic concept that can fit into many many thought currents. Regarding society, every hierarchy "claims" you in a way. You belong to a ruler, to your family, to society, to civilization, to humanity, etc., Each of those categories impose certain duties on you.

It's like muslims have women cover themselves. Does belonging to society mean that they should follow these rules? Then there's the "outer society", human civilization, which is idealized here in the west as having something to do with free will and such, but this is a minority thought, and most people don't agree. So which of all the outer societes' rules should they follow? I think most prescriptive philosophical currents claim to be the "one true best way of doing things", and then you have to look at an index of 1397 major currents to find it, and you see the dislike count for the one you like and there's 5.5 billion dislikes for being too *insert pejorative descriptor*.

In the end society as an observable organism is real, but as a collective deserving loyalty, I think that's way more subjective.

Downloading this Foundation 7 book bundle.

Also, my favorite kdrama actress just starred in a new drama that was just released. "See You In My 19th Life". Seems I will have to obsessively binge that too.

U got any recommended readings on stoicism that are from this century? I tried reading Marcus Aurelius. It doesn't really explain the why of anything.