Given egalitarian power relations, there is insidiousness in giving too much, just as there is insidiousness in taking too much. A recipient of good deeds may be given to resent if those good deeds are impossible to repay.
There's an old story mentioned in Graeber's Debt which tells of a man who was given an elaborately carved shield or crest - can't remember exactly which at the moment - and in a fury, went off to kill his benefactor, who ended up escaping I believe. To this culture it sounds almost hilariously absurd, but in a culture where a gift economy is far more prominent, this can be a serious problem.
Contrary to standard economic doctrines, most people are reciprocal in nature, with only a minority solely self-interested. One has to be able to give and take. One must take to live, and another must give for another to take, but similarly, another must take for another to give.
In assymetrical power relations, it is true that one who has too much power should be giving far more than taking, but as those power relations even out, to continue to give is to invert the logic of uneven reciprocation.
Oddly enough, it is possible for two givers to enter into competition to see who is more giving; I've heard this referred to as the "selfless olympics" by spiritual practitioners, which is a pretty funny way to describe it.
There is a certain high social regard given to givers, which can be seen as a good, just as material goods or brute or economic power can be seen to be a good, so that someone who has taken on a prominent social role as a giver gains power that is different from the powers of violence or economics, but which is power nonetheless.
In a similar way, an abundance of love or accolades bestowed on a single person has an irradiating effect: it poisons the relationships around the person, as resent builds among the peers around the person, these peers feeling resentful for being deprived of that love, whether justly or unjustly. Of course this love and resent varies with the character and self-perceived security of the individuals doing the loving and resenting.
In the aggregate, these asymmetries of emotional/social power create the need for hierarchies and symbolic rationalizations, which can maintain these uneven topographies without causing greater social disturbances.
If one believes another is metaphysically superior, then that other can do much more taking, or giving, depending on the relationship. So indulging these uneven topographies - if we are holding egalitarian assumptions - puts us right back at square one. We are required to argue over what would make a better hierarchy, and that we should give up our egalitarian aspirations.
Of course, there will always be countless hierarchies existent in our social lives, at least weaker ones that are created and destroyed as social relations change. We aren't all born equal of course, and the very notion of equality depends on a society's dominant values.
The question then is whether to have a hierarchy that is stronger and more resilient through time, which creates its own set of problems, or simply to make do with that constant negotiation of giving and taking.
