The first social theorist, the penetration in the life of a child, his parents, and with a lecture topic for the scientific sociologists, the concept of reciprocity: The social life is based on reciprocity, and services could, therefore, received only, who was also against services. As a theory of the family that would be indicated so that the exchange model with security wrong. Because, as Max Weber recognized, apply here, rather, the distribution rules of communism: from Each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs. Who is small or sick, do not need to earn the claimed help only still. And who is big and healthy, have to help out, without focusing on the exchange value of the aid. The exact balance of current accounts, it is not so "among brothers".
But the exchange model of the parents, then at least to the society? An Argument in their favor could be: Unbalanced social relations, in which one only gives and the other only takes, in General, to the legitimate complaints of the Just-licensor against the licensee. You violate the morals, sense of Justice, if necessary, the law of contract. But there can be also social relations, which are not against the law, but in full Accordance with him one-sided and one-sided to stay? There may be cases in which one has only rights and the other only duties? At first it sounds implausible: Why should the expected to be so Committed to do what the so-Legitimate of him? The older, pre-modern conception of law, such a thought was completely remote. For the law of the one is always already with countervailing duties against the other was connected to, and by virtue of this connection as a right to imagine. The counter-concept to law was not mandatory, but wrong.
No waste of this order, but a complement to it
The American sociologist Alvin Gouldner, who was born one hundred years ago, are thought of two examples, in which "something for nothing" to give, while the other "may something for nothing" received: institutionalised exploitation in accordance with the pattern of slavery and the institutionalized tax obligations of the Rich to the poor, helping out, without any solid, any this-side response hope. But it is precisely the legal relationship with the slaves was as much as to us today have been surprised to like, according to the model of the relationship of an owner to his stuff, and so not just as a social relationship terms. And that the moral duty of the Rich to charity is not a right just corresponds to this poor relief and meet, see Gouldner himself.
Now, Gouldner was neither legal sociologist nor a trained lawyer. Maybe it's because that the really convincing answer to his question came only a of his colleagues: Niklas Luhmann, the both were at the same time. His answer is: Yes, there is such a one-sided legal relations, the modern society is even full of them, and each of us is, in turns, as the Only donor or Only-taker asked. The police officer who helps me after a break-in, I owe no assistance in the upcoming move of his apartment. The fact that I refer to social assistance, not required me to be critical of the government's Statements to do so. And if the state wants to increase my taxes, then he is allowed to do this is to promise me in exchange for any concessions. It may be politically opportune, the compensate for the additional load immediately, but legally this is not necessary, and also politically not done it quite in any case.Updated Date: 13 August 2020, 06:20