Actually IPOs are at an all-time low in the US (Facebook is the new model); so much for the "transparency" argument. Additionally, big business is almost unanimously using pre-dispute arbitration clauses now, so much of the action happens independent of US courts.

This definitely weakens the transparency argument, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it eliminates it.

The problem is, it can actually be very difficult to evaluate the contribution of the courts and the military to the stabilization of international trade. A resident of Monaco could certainly stump me by asking "well, if the US or French military is so essential for my protection, then who is it who would be attacking me?"

I suppose I could try to come up with an answer (probably easier during the cold war), but the unsatisfying response is "who knows, but a rueful glance through history suggests it would probably be someone."

You probably believe that the rich need the US and allied military to the extend to which you agree with that answer. Same kind of goes for the courts - rather than point to a particular need fulfilled, a lot of people would say that without a system for resolving crimes, torts and even contracts, a modern economy simply couldn't exist.

I think you make a good point, but you still need a legal and court system in order to enforce the arbitration clauses; they build on the legal system but don't replace it. If you didn't have the underlying court system, there wouldn't be a way to hold parties to decisions made in binding arbitration that they didn't like.