[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. Now let me present a hypothetical.

Mr. X breaks into Mr. Y's house and takes a chair. Mr. Y claims it's his chair.

A dispute ensues.

Mr X and Mr Y come to me, an impartial third party, to settle their dispute.

Should I consider anything other than the fact that Mr. Y has possession of the chair?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Mr. X had possession of the chair, after taking it?

That aside, you are only given the power to resolve this dispute of theirs by their agreement.

My position is that ownership is determined by agreement or force, or a combination of the two.

If these to gentlemen agree to have you resolve the dispute, rather than seek force, knowing that you may very well take the legitimacy of the prior ownership into consideration, that is entirely up to them to agree too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I thought legitimacy doesn't matter.

Does it?