Yes, but not by physical force. The product is a court is opinion and only opinion.
Nonsense. The property owners whose opinion has been changed will use physical force to defend their property.
If it’s the property owners who are using the physical force, then you’re agreeing that it’s not part of the responsibilities of the court. At least, in that example. How is that supposed to show that what I’m saying is nonsense? I don’t get it.
Ultimately, any ruling relies on physical force.
Seconded.
So, the important question is what manner of physical force is justified. There is reason to suspect that many people and firms will reach preexisting agreements regarding differences in views and upon chains of arbitration. In lieu of such and in the situation of the accused refusing any arbitration, firms will be tasked with carrying out justice anyhow.
This is totally not true.
A judge can find you at fault for some offense and his ruling will simply get logged in some open data base (A black list). Good luck next time finding a business partner. Don’t show up to court? No problem, you’re in the black list automatically.
No force is required for the above example. You had already agreed to the above proceedings in the contract that is now under dispute.
You don’t see a loophole here?
By the very fact that two parties are taking their dispute to a judge, they agree to leave the disputed assets in the judge’s possession. Once the judge rules, he returns the assets to the lawful claimant.
Now if I am in a dispute with someone, I will not go to a judge that will refrain from using force out of some sensibility to non-aggression. I will go to the judge who will most effectively return to me the assets, and that means the judge with the most power to use physical force to take them.
This. Or something resembling this. Definitely couldn’t have said it better myself.
The heads of both families involved, imo.