Right, according to ye olde world 'Milk-Snatcher' Thatcher 'There is no such thing as society, on individuals and famillies'
Its interesting to note, that the neo-liberals do tend to make this exception for the familly, we are all selfish, grasping individuals, except for familly, where we become sacrificing and loving. There are problems with this model,
1:What familly- In the west this really means Nuclar Familly (mammy, daddy, and baby makes three), but in, say, the far east, this mean a big extended familly- how far does familly run, would I make sacrifices for my siblings? For my Uncle? For my Cousins? My second cousin once removed by marrriage/ Where?
2:Do we prioritise, is there a famillial hierarchy (one child over another, a favourite grandparent, a hated neice, etc.)?
3:Why is the familly such an exception- can I not have stronger feelings for, say, a close work-mate, than I do my uncle? What about my best fried, do I ellevate them to 'brother' status?
It seems to me as if tehf amilial exception actually provides wide lattitude for a full scale hierarchsation of all relationships, and since familly is a socialised event, not one governed by mysteries of blood, it can extend well beyond our genetic kin.
As for 'Comparative Advantage', Gee seems to take a fairly Conservative line there, well in retrogression to his usual radicalism. Lets loook at an example of 'Comparative Advantage' seeking for kin- nepotism.
Since Gee thinks seeking Comparative advantage for kin is good, and the free givign of property is to be utterly unrestricted, then he must be accepting that, say, a rich man can give well paying (and perhaps largely meaningless) posts and jobs to his idiot son, over them as, perhaps, might dserve them more- again, the Economies of the Pac-Rim provide examples of such fillial loyalty.
It seems to me, that the familly presents a large and gaping contradiction to the doctrines of individualism, an aporia that is usually left unspoken.