Depends, what do you mean by defective and what do you mean by rebels?

I can see why you observe the ant colony thing, however I think we shouldn't mistake having a unified ego as having a unified controlling hive mind as ants do. Whether or not ants even have an ego is beyond our ken.

Lets bring it down a notch from a unified collective ego and just describe an ethical national egoism.
Now, how familiar are you with the writings of MLK jr? "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Here we have an insight on two different interpretations of the law and how they relate to ethics. First, we have those who hold true the Rule of the Law. By this interpretation, all laws are ethical and to be followed without question. Then we have those who hold true to the Spirit of the Law. This interpretation comes with the belief (which is generally agreed upon in moral philosophy) That which is legal, is not always ethical, and that which is illegal, is not always unethical. So, even rebels can be deemed as moral agents. Without bad, how do you know what good is? Three examples: Rosa Parks illegally refusing to give up her seat for a white man. Was this wrong? Modern example: Man with a chronic illness self medicating with marijuana in a country it is illegal. Is this wrong? Timeless example: A family illegally emigrating to a country to escape war/violence/famine/prejudice and/or persecution. Is this wrong?

Are all criminals, merely that.. criminals? Or are some people moral agents who hold to the spirit of the law and wish to be part of the process for molding and shaping it into something a little bit better? I see moral philosophy as a collaborative effort. We are all molding the field of moral philosophy as we go and we are the models we are observing when we are deliberating on whether or not an action is wrong or not. From the seemingly virtuous person who may give us an insight on what it means to be good, to the morally despicable person who may give us an insight on what it means to be bad.

Now going back to the dialogical self, we also can view ourselves as having internal agents. A theme you will find in TV and Cinema is the Angel and Devil on your shoulder. This kind of simply describes how agents of a dialogical self interact within. Your inner monologue, can be interpreted as different agents of self, some of which have conflicting goals. For example, when a person goes skydiving it is not uncommon for a lot of internal conflict on the way up. Fear and survival instincts telling you to by no means jump out of a moving airplane and your need for thrill, adventure and excitement spurring you on, telling you to just jump. Finally the agent of rationality settles the dispute by reminding the decisive you that you are wearing two parachutes and are with professionals to help keep you safe.

Rounding back to OPs question. If these three different agents I've described, the individual ego, the national ego and the unified human ego are truly identifiable and we as humans have the ability to improve ourselves and contribute towards the collective, (which must also treat us with respect and allow for equal opportunity for all within a democratic society, without sacrificing people for the sake of a fictional higher class. So not fascism, never that) Then I still believe that ethical egoism when applied to the collective ego and even the national ego (so long as your nation doesn't achieve this by needlessly warring or enslaving other countries and peoples and seeks to cultivate outward friendship with other nations in service of the collective ego) can truly be ethical.

However, this is in an ideal world where people can agree on how to ground ethics in the first place.

I am astounded and offended at the same time. At one point i am intrigued with your connections, yet next offended with your professorial tone. I (we) know nothing about you sir. I am intrigued non the less. And to your point of Martin Luther King Jr. I don't believe he had a choice as to his punishment yet took what he was given. What prisoner is given an option for imprisonment or not? A Pope Maybe? What other options did he have? I don't mean to lessen the man or what he stood for, on the contrary, He helped changed the Law. The Law (social dynamic) is our creation and should always be something to be proud of maybe. If at least better than before, right. I am kind'of the mind that maybe we should be looking mor to the future of some kind of post-humanism where these values that we hold as humans now aren't so applicable. This Truth we hold so precious will change.

You give too much sir at one time. Parse it out please.

We all have choices in every situation. MLK Jr wasnt mainly talking about himself and his own situation but of a situation shared by many of his colour at the time. I'm merely observing his sentiment as still applicable.

I apologise if I have offended you in some way. It's not my intent at all this is just how I write. I want to give as high quality and substantive answers because that is what is required to do philosophy well and I try and aspire to that in my answers. I have told you directly about myself, Aspergers and a 10 year self directed student of philosophy, psychology, mathematics, physics, ethics and logic.

I just want the discussions to keep going. Not here to do competitive debating. Id rather listen learn and share when I get the urge to and hope that I might make some valuable points.

Is where or who an argument comes from that much more than the arguments themselves?

Perhaps you are right sir. It may be my own inadequacies that are offensive to me. I agree that your points are substantive and high quality and i can't help but promote that in a discussion of philosophy. This environment is new to me. I have spent a majority of my life with only the comfort of books while the only human interaction was with those who may have read only one or considered them weapons.
It seems i am far behind, yet i will not let that deter me. Excuse me please if i get testy sometimes.
As to your last point to "Is where or who an argument comes from that much more than the arguments themselves?" well no, i think an argument stands for itself. Which kind of makes me ashamed for my previous comments about your professorial tone. I recall listening to a podcast, i believe was "Making Sense" not too long ago and the podcaster spent a long time defending his decision of interviewing a person of which had racist beliefs. The interview wasn't on those topics and the subject was relevant, yet he (the Podcaster) was vilified by VOX for giving a platform for this ideologue So in actuality, perhaps the messenger (or perception of the messenger) does matter if the point of communication is to get ones view across to the most.

You dont need to be so humble my friend, you're asking what I percieve to be great questions and are a great person to have these discussions with.

You aren't inadequate, you're curious, realistic and healthily skeptical! All great traits to have.

Just so you are aware, I find tone is something that doesn't translate well via writing (Cohens preface to logic points to the subtleties in verbal language as being much a part of it as the written word, body language, inflection and so forth.) and I assure you my tone when discussing philosophy with you is only intended to be one of friendliness, patience and authentic passion for the discussion.

Sorry OP for getting so off topic! Hopefully you find our discussion valuable toward the subject. Relational meanings are a very difficult thing to argue for.

I can't remember why I brought up The Power of Nonviolence. That doesn't really have too much to do with what I'm on about.

I don't actually agree that emotionality is problematic for Ethics. I think that the problem is just sensationalism. What is felt is the natural response to whatever Ethics there are.

Also, I think that the philosopher that I'm looking for is Thomas Hobbes. Assumedly, I should read Leviathan. Does anyone know where Hobbes parcels out an ethic, or of theories of Ethics that stem from Hobbes. I feel like there is an antithetical methodology to my general sentiments out there somewhere, but, as I do, admittedly, tend to keep to my own circles, I'm not entirely sure where to look.