"People" here being criminals that exploited a flaw in the DAO, yeah?
The code is the contract, enforced by a decentralized network of actors. Of course that network can at any point change the contract if the majority of them agree to do so – how else would it work? The key is that there is no way for individual actors to modify contracts at will – you need consensus. It's the difference between oligarchy and democracy.
What was forcibly altered? Perhaps the meaning of "force" is different for you than it is for me.
[1] Yes I know that wasn't the real reason why trading was halted
The sentencing of criminals in republics is very removed from democratic action (see drug criminalization).
Show us the votes, then. Did a majority of miners and/or coinholders vote to hard-fork?
Yup, and I don't want public votes to decide the amount of money I have.
Unfortunately, there is no alternative. The value of what you have is decided by what people are willing to pay for it in markets. If people decide that they value the forked ETH that doesn't provide the money to the people who stole from the DAO more than the version where those people have all of the money, then it is going to be more valuable. You don't escape this problem with fiat either.
Basic market mechanisms like this are pretty much inescapable.
As I said, there is no escaping market mechanisms, as value is market contextual. Certainly, there are assets with more or less stable value, but that is still due to the whims of what people (ie. the "public") are willing to pay.
If I'm, say, from a persecuted cultural group, I'll want to keep my wealth in an asset that has the same value whether I or someone else own it. Precious metals fit this bill better than both fiat and public-ledger cryptocurrencies.
ETH is probably not the best example here because they have rug-pulled people with a hard fork.