A Response to Out of Frame’s Exploration of Cowboy Bebop and Moral Hazard

“It’s because of my honest appreciation for Sean’s steadfast commitment to liberal values that I was shocked by one of the positions he defended in this episode.”

Source: A Response to Out of Frame’s Exploration of Cowboy Bebop and Moral Hazard - Foundation for Economic Education

This article uses Cowboy Bebop to argue a point. Namely, that the character Faye Valentine is not responsible for compensating those who rescued her from death because she did not have an agreement with them to do so before hand.

While I agree in principle, this line of thinking sort of falls apart in real life. In an emergency situation in which you are incapacitated, how do you give consent? Though there might be various ways of doing so in theory, it is quite likely that in an emergency situation none would have time to be figured out/validated/verified in time to actually save your life short of having "save my life at all costs" tattooed across your forehead. Even then, it might be obscured by blood. I suppose that in an ideal libertarian world, there would be a way to have a contract with every emergency services company/person/etc. who might be able to save you wherever you happen to be but this is not practical today and may never be. Even with such contracts, you really have no recourse if the other party doesn't honor them because you would be dead.

Does any moral obligation exist if you are saved, would have wanted to be saved, but didn't actually have a contract or opportunity to give consent, and somebody saved you anyway?

I think that generally it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people would want to be saved (excepting maybe those who attempt suicide). Is it reasonable for someone who expended significant resources to save you to argue that you would have wanted to be saved even though no explicit contract existed and therefore should be compensated? Being the person that was saved and trying to argue that the other party should have let you die is only convincing if the person saved is willing to kill themselves. In most cases it would be an outright lie so I'm not sure of how moral that argument would be either. On the other hand, without a pre-arranged agreement, the rescuer(s) can simply charge whatever they want and say that's what you owe them. This is more in line with what it feels like if you go to the hospital today.