Responding to Out of Frame’s Analysis of Cowboy Bebop and Moral Hazard

Out of Frame, the YouTube channel known for its insightful analysis and commentary, is undoubtedly impressive. However, I find myself in disagreement with a particular stance it takes in the Cowboy Bebop episode, especially when viewed through the lens of libertarian ideology.

First and foremost, let me emphasize that I am an avid fan of Sean Malone, the creator of Out of Frame, as well as the content produced by The Foundation for Economic Education. During my high school years, watching Out of Frame played a pivotal role in shaping my journey towards classical liberalism. Sean’s ability to explain complex economic concepts, public choice theory, and political philosophy in a relatable and captivating manner through his analysis of popular media was instrumental in fostering my appreciation for these subjects.

Having established my admiration for Sean and Out of Frame, it should come as no surprise that I was thrilled to see them cover Cowboy Bebop, a beloved anime series that has recently gained renewed attention due to Netflix’s live-action adaptation of the early 2000s masterpiece.

In the episode, Sean puts forth a compelling thesis that highlights the interconnectedness of personal responsibility, good decision-making, and the search for meaning in one’s own life. He specifically delves into the significance of bearing the financial consequences of our actions to prevent moral hazard from wreaking havoc and burdening others with the costs of actions they did not undertake. As a devoted admirer of Frédéric Bastiat, I immediately recognized Sean’s reiteration of what my favorite 19th-century French economic journalist, often considered a precursor to libertarian thought, referred to as “The Law of Responsibility” in his seminal essay, “The Law.”

It is evident that Sean, being a principled libertarian, possesses a deep understanding and appreciation for the philosophical foundations underpinning this political framework. Hence, it was rather shocking to find myself at odds with one of the positions he defended in this particular episode.

Sean argues that Faye Valentine, the charismatic femme fatale and a fan-favorite character among the motley crew of the Bebop spaceship, is morally obligated to repay those who cryopreserved and revived her following a nearly fatal space accident. Some readers might assume that I reject this argument and believe that Faye owes her benefactors nothing since their intervention was necessary to preserve her life.

However, contrary to popular progressive sentiments, this is not my stance. Like any self-respecting libertarian, I reject the conflation of positive entitlements to essential goods and services with rights. Believing in positive “rights” within a world of limited resources is akin to asserting a claim over others’ unpaid labor, time, skills, or property. Such a belief fundamentally contradicts the principles of classical liberalism, which advocate for individuals’ negative rights to liberty, private property, and autonomy. On these grounds, Sean is justified in stating that “they could have just as easily let [Faye] die in the frozen vastness of space.” In fact, no one bore any moral obligation to invest their own resources, whether it be time, energy, capital, or anything else, to save Faye’s life. Moreover, Faye never asked anyone to do so.

It is precisely the one-sided nature of Faye’s rescue and the subsequent debt imposed upon her that prompts me to vehemently disagree with Sean from a libertarian perspective. The rescuers did not have Faye’s consent, meaning they unilaterally entered into a contract with an unconscious individual who, by definition, was incapable of accepting or rejecting the terms of that contract. To Sean’s credit, he acknowledges that valuable resources were allocated to preserve Faye’s life, and it is undeniable that the funds for these goods and services must come from someone’s pocket.

However, Sean’s assertion that Faye should bear this burden is highly dubious. Furthermore, his initial invocation of moral hazard in the episode is somewhat misleading. Unlike someone who purchases homeowner’s insurance and subsequently acts negligently by leaving candles burning while sleeping without concern, Faye did not engage in unreasonably risky behavior with the knowledge that others would be forced to bear the consequences of her actions. In other words, moral hazard does not come into play here.

To illustrate where Sean’s reasoning falls short, allow me to present a hypothetical scenario that highlights the potential injustice of demanding payment from a beneficiary of an unrequested and unconsented service.

A common panhandling tactic involves washing the windshield of a parked car while it is stuck in traffic, followed by demanding compensation from the driver for the rendered service. The argument put forth by the panhandler is that the driver received a benefit from the service and thus has an obligation to pay for it. However, there are both economic and moral issues with this approach.

From an economic standpoint, the panhandler unilaterally sets a wage based on his perception of the value of his time. Unfortunately, this position relies on an implicit labor theory of value, which fails to acknowledge that what one person considers valuable (in terms of time or other resources) may not necessarily hold the same worth for another. This highlights the importance of mutually agreed-upon contracts, which only occur when both parties perceive the gains from the transaction to outweigh the sacrifices.

From a moral perspective, the panhandler’s position is equally indefensible. One cannot spontaneously provide a service to another person and demand compensation in return. While it may not be morally wrong to unilaterally offer someone a good or service for free, such an act does not confer a moral claim to that person, their efforts, or their money.

The panhandler scenario bears resemblance to Faye’s unsolicited resurrection and the subsequent debt servitude imposed on her by her “saviors” in Cowboy Bebop. If one accepts the arguments presented in the former scenario, they must also accept them in the latter. I believe that Sean would readily agree with me regarding the panhandler situation. However, he staunchly maintains that Faye’s rescuers possess a legitimate claim to her property, labor, and even her person until the substantial debt accumulated on her behalf is repaid. This effectively amounts to involuntary indentured servitude or, to put it simply, slavery.

Now, I do not for a moment believe that Sean supports the notion of unilateral contract-making or breaking, involuntary association, or forced labor. After all, he and his audience are principled libertarians. However, I genuinely believe that Sean arrived at a false conclusion in this instance, one that is fundamentally at odds with the broader classical liberal principles he espouses, especially the unwavering commitment to individual autonomy, voluntary association, and consensual contracts.

In conclusion, I invite the reader to ponder whether they would owe anything to anyone if they suddenly woke up in an unfamiliar future world, only to be informed by a kidnapper/hero (the judgment of which I leave to you) that they had died in their sleep, been whisked away to a cryochamber, and revived against their will.

We bring out some of the most well-known Cowboy Bebop collection, all of which are available at reasonable costs. Visit our link now if you are interested in the Cowboy Bebop collection

Julia,Spike Spiegel,Vicious,Annie