Now how does one, in the position of a giver, avoid that others might fall into remorse or a actually into a transgression?By ways of "Zuvorkommenheit" ("prevenience courtesy", habit of acting before [a wish would arise, be expressed], good if based on obligingness) is most important if wishing for the welfare of others.
It's therefore usual that if a new fellow arises in ones sphere of dwelling (except gross improper behavior is perceived, to the limits of ones fear of loos) to offer by speech the one of all ones possessions and of what can be used without being not given.
Why is the thought alone "oh may he take what ever he needs" not enough alone? Because it might be that someone has doubt, yet nevertheless takes, and although the "giver" had actually mentally agreed, he would nevertheless fall into a transgression.
It's usual that in good societies, if the case arises that one needs to ask, others in relation, being in a situation of duty, would be ashamed if such could happen.
In bad societies, there where the thoughts of wrong view domain, thoughts like "he could act as all of us", "why serving if nobody serves us/me" "only if there is a deal, deeds are well placed", "Zuvorkommenheit" is seen as weakness on both sides. For one side it is a loose of possibilities to win or get others in debts, and for the other side, the receiver, it's fear of getting in debt or being observed as receiver.
This is why in certain "poor" societies, even if not instructed and knowing limits of others, "Zuvorkommenheit" solves a lot of issues while in certain "rich" societies, although limits are known stinginess overwhelms any kind of "Zuvorkommenheit" and rather then releasing each other pulling each other more and more down to the point of breaking apart.
There is normally nevertheless no change to protect a person of no integrity from faults, as the wish to deny obligation, goodness and debt, domains. Related to this issue is there a short story about the matter of
Giving, taking and the "new" world .