I disagree. I like being a US citizen(and am willing to pay for it) knowing that unlike with most other countries, if some foreign group messes with me or my fellow citizens, the might of the US may come raining down on their heads. Not for nothing this is a rare occurence done to US vessels. Lets not forget there are over 240 hostages from other countries right now in Somalia, the result of non stop pirating on other countries(who do virtually nothing, hats of to the french though) shipping.
When I visited the DMZ in Korea last year, I was required to sign a waiver stating that I understood the risk I was taking and that I might be lost to hostile action despite the best efforts of the UN forces to protect me. My free choice to enter into a potentially dangerous area meant I took the risk and assumed the costs if things went wrong.
Had Maersk posted, say, two armed security guards on board their freighter, they could have easily repelled the boarding attempt and prevented this whole mess in the first place. They did not do so because they want to take a risk (navigate the Indian Ocean) without assuming the increased costs that go along with the increased risks.
As a result, we taxpayers have to dispatch a billion-dollar plus warship to bail out Maersk. So , as a fellow taxpayer, are you saying the use of an Arleigh Burke-class DDG to combat 4 idiots in a lifeboat is money-well-spent? I'll make a wild guess and say it would be cheaper to station two US Navy sailors, each with small arms and an M2 .50 cal MG, onboard every US-flagged vessel passing Somalia, than it would be to post the three or four DDG's necesscary to adequately patrol the whole area along the coast of Somalia. Send the bill for the sailors to the shipping companies. It'd be cheaper for them too!