You have decided to only address the second question.  So be it.

>  >   To save time on your second question, what do you mean by "deriving
some
>  >sort of authority"?  Do you mean "the people" must be engaged in creating
>  >the law, simply respecting the law, or something else?

>  What is meant here is that the law in modern society is subject to
>  the consent of the people.

   So you are saying it is the equivalent of simply respecting the law?

>  This is explained succinctly in the famous
>  George Orwell quote, "The parliament can make laws, but whether and
>  how they will be enforced will be determined according to the will of
>  the people." (Actually, I can't remember the exact words, I just
>  paraphrased. But that is the gist of it.)

    In other words, if the majority of people decide a law is not in their
interest or if they simply do not like a law it ceases to have "authority"?

>  The people will withdraw their consent if they do not regard it as
>  "fair'. And as we have already seen, "fair" is a subjective notion.

     We have seen nothing of the kind.  You have merely asserted it.

    Are you are suggesting that "the people", as a majority, on a case by
case basis, are the arbiters of what is a fair application of the law?  Does
this mean that a jury is being "fair" if it applies the law differently
against one person as opposed to another because of subjective feelings?

>  But the 'will of the people' is probably a better way of putting it,
>  it is what the majority of people subjectively think is fair that
>  matters, not the letter of the law. In the end this is what will
>  determine how, and even if, the law is enforced.

    So if I am a well loved celebrity and I murder someone, and the majority
of the people think I am too nice a person to actually go to jail, it is fair
that I be set free?  The "letter of the law" should only apply to those who
the "majority of the people" are unconcerned about?

>  For example, up until very recently, practicing homosexuality carried
>  a 21 year jail sentence in here in Tasmania. But it has been a very
>  long time indeed since the authorities attempted to enforce that law.
>  Because it would have offended the will of the people, it would have
>  been considered grossly unfair. And the authorities well knew it.
>  Another example is abortion, which is illegal under the letter of the
>  law, but the letter of the law has been ignored for many years
>  because that is the will of the people. There are many such examples.

   I do not know how it is in Tasmania but in the US if the imprisoning of a
person for homosexual activity can be shown to be Unconstitutional, then it
is invalidated as law and the feelings or thoughts of the majority of "the
people" do not matter.  It is called the "Rule of Law" as opposed to the
"Rule of the Mob".

>  In the case in point, the US electoral system, I can't say whether
>  most of the US population regard it as unfair. But if they did I
>  would expect that 'will of the people' to force a change. Perhaps not
>  in the letter of the law, but certainly in how it is enforced.

    One would think so.  In fact, there is a constitutional procedure for
making a change to the US Constitution.  It is through an amendment process
in which 2/3 of the House of Representatives and Senate propose the amendment
and 3/4 of the State legislatures agree to it.  That is how the "will of the
people" can be constitutionally exercised.  Since it is based on law (a
specific and delineated set of rules) the losers tend to accept the outcome.
If left to the "will of the people" do you think this would be so?


>  I don't know, but I do suspect strongly, that an electoral system in
>  which the candidate receiving the majority of the votes is defeated
>  by another candidate would have to be an electoral system (law) which
>  is extremely vulnerable to being regarded as offensive and unfair by
>  the majority.

    This is a red herring.  The electing of a president to head the executive
branch of our Federal government is done by the individual states.  To win
the electoral votes of a State a candidate must win the popular vote within
that State.  That means that there are 50 contests in which each candidate
attempts to win the popular vote.

 However this is complicated by the fact that only a
>  minority of people in the US actually vote.

   Irrelevant.  Ideally, in America, one does not vote unless one is willing
to temporarily enfranchise a candidate with the right to exercise power in
one's name.  Of course, many, for whatever reason, do not do so.

>  Obviously yours is a country without a strong democratic culture, so
>  perhaps an unfair electoral system would not be considered very
>  important? Perhaps people there will "consent" to such a law?

    Our democratic culture is strong when it needs to be, but I understand
your constant need to insult my people.

>  If not, one of the mechanisms our society uses to cope with this is
>  the ability of the courts themselves to make new law, by
>  re-interpreting the letter of the law or simply making up entirely
>  new "common" law out of thin air.

    In America this is not right and is unconstitutional.  Unfortunately such
activity takes place and it takes awhile for the built in check against such
abuse of power to take effect.

 This is often necessary, especially
>  when parliament, elected politicians, are too slow or incapable of
>  fixing problems.

   In other words, it is necessary to employ methods that subvert democracy
and undermine the will of the people if things are not going smashingly your
particular way?  Just turn the whole thing over to a pack of elite black
robed harlots?  we try to avoid that in America.

>   Since the US has such a backward electoral system
>  and the conflict of interest of politicians is so blatant and
>  obvious, it is probably the quickest way to fix the mess there.

    No, it is the fascist way.

>  Nothing wrong with that, as youw assert, this is a legitimate role
>  for the courts, to fix bad law.

  I have asserted nothing of the kind.  "Fixing bad law" is the purview of
the legislative branch of the State or Federal government.

>  "Bad" law obviously uncludes any law which offends the will of the
>  people, which does not have the "consent" of the people in Chomskyian
>  terms.

    "Bad law" is that which offends the constitution.

Yours,
Issodhos