Before I called myself "libertarian" I called myself an individualist. Individualism goes deep back with me in my formative years and I lived the concepts very well before I read philosophy in my early 20s. I regret having other labels. But maybe "individualism" does not convey the Non-Aggression Principle, so I wanted to be more precise. These days I say "Voluntarist." I agree with the principles of Voluntaryism, which is anarchism and non-aggression principle, but it does not necessarily mean individualism.
Labels are imperfect. But any that are divisive (other than individualism) which is used to convey an "us versus them" thing is what I want to get away from. "Individualism," or "individualist" is never "us." Individualists do not join. Some individualists are sociopaths, unfortunately, but I think it could be worth the risk of being considered a sociopath if I only ask people to regard me as a unique individual. A man without a race, a man without a religion, a man without a nation.
Note the "alt-right" hates individualism since by definition no individualist is a nationalist. The "Antifa" types of course favor leftist collectivism.
"Individualism" is a repudiation of the pack mentality. The pack mentality is unintelligent and destructive.
I do want to persuade people of the immorality of government and I can do that with the individualist perspective.
An individualist works for his rational self-interest and that is to grow wealthier and be left alone. Logically that also means to avoid conflicts with others and to trade with others. The non-aggression principle should be a natural part of individualism by default.
There are irrational people who call themselves individualists, but they are frauds. They treat any person outside their own group (of one, the individual) as not worthy. They do not distinguish good from bad, right from wrong, friend from adversary, but that all others are bad, wrong, and adversaries.
Individualism is a tougher idea to convince others because it does not explicitly promote benevolence. It's not a philosophy. It does not discuss metaphysics, ethics, and reason. And as a concept, it shouldn't discuss those. It assumes one is smart enough to figure those ideas. I point to the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand as the natural fit to individualism. And that is with great hesitation because a lot of Ayn Rand's detractors fail to separate Objectivism from the personality and Ayn Rand's politics. Ayn Rand was Zionist primarily. So that is why she had to be politically inconsistent with objectivism and denounce anarchism.
"Individualist" is not divisive, so with respect to the fights between right wing collectivists and left-wing collectivist, I think it's overdue for promotion.
It would be great if we, as a species, were mature enough to combine individualism with philosophy, but until then, we must go back a bit to fundamentals and describe ourselves as individualists and avoid at all costs any group mentality - whether it is in grouping ourselves or grouping others.