Its kindof hard to deny them coverage without also denying ourselves coverage.
Most of the coverage is just maintaining the capability. We could perhaps maintain the capability with a publicly expressed policy that we will do nothing to protect trade or otherwise secure the seas, if it doesn't in some way involve our trade or our highly direct interests, but even if we did so, we would still be paying for the capability. And to the extent the plege is believed, and we allow pirates or hostile powers, or other threats to interrupt trade that we are not directly involved with, we wind up in a worse situation than if we generally protected trade.
Its not a standard insurance contract where you can pay to people who pay the fees, and not pay to those who don't. Its closer to providing police protection. Its a public good (again I'm using the economics term of art, not making a claim that its generally good for the public, even though I would support such a claim), providing it for one, to at least an extent, provides it for all. Preventing the disruption of trade for others, helps us, protecting our own trade, and maintaining the capability to smash those who disrupt it, deters attacks on other trade (if to a lesser extent than it deters attacks on US trade, or esp. US flagged ships). Just as arresting a criminal for murdering a client (of a police force which tried to deny non-clients, those who don't pay), also helps reduce the risk of murder for non-clients, and arresting a murderer of a non-client, reduces the risk to clients.
The main reason why we can't easily rely totally on the market for security, for police, prosecution of criminals, military defense, etc., is because of that public good aspect. |
