Contemporary Political Philosophy: Third Estate (Essay Sample)

CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY ASSIGNMENT
STUDENT NAME
STUDENT ID
DATE:
In What is the Third Estate? Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès answers his question “What is a nation?” (47) as follows: “a body of associates living under common laws and represented by the same representative assembly” (47). Given this definition of the nation, explain why Sieyès thinks that the nobility cannot be part of the nation. Sieyès writes: “Do not ask what is the appropriate place for a privileged class in the social order. It is like deciding on the appropriate place in the body of a sick man for a malignant tumor that torments him and drains his strength. It must be neutralized” (117). For Sieyès, what is a privileged class (or a privileged corporation or order)? Explain why a member of a privileged class cannot be a citizen or be represented in the National Assembly. According to Sieyès, why would constituting France as a nation guarantee that every member of the third estate is a somebody, rather than a nobody (49)? (In the France not yet constituted as a nation, what makes a member of the third estate subject to “contempt, insult, and humiliation” (49) and lacking in “human dignity” (49)? In what sense would France as a nation respect and realize the human dignity of the third estate?)
A nation shares universal rights and is governed by the same standard rules. Thus there should be equality. However, in most cases, a country has people who control others or have more privileges to others, which causes destruction to the governance system and weakens the nation. Besides, although there is the recognition that a country is composed of different classes, there should be equal to fall in the common rule. Otherwise, it would create groups like the nobility and privileged who may not fit in what we are refereeing to as a nation. Thus the current essay will make a discussion as to what is a nation, and what comprises the third estate, and move forward to assessing nobility and privileged groups who violated the standard order. Then look at bonds and family collective nature building a nation. 
In what is the third estate, the author defines a nation (Sieyès, 1789, p.47), but he excludes nobility as part of what comprises a society. In his discussion, the exclusion is due to the thought that the virtue of being right does not exist. In the write-up, it is recognized that in the nation, there are different sets of classes of people. The privileges to have all that they want, which weakens and oppresses the third estate. Thus the author alleges that in the existence of privilege order, which seems to be part of a nation, nobility cannot exist. The author therefore argues, that nobility can be a burden a country has to carry, but it cannot be part of it. The author provides reasons for the exclusion. First, he argues that it is hard to find a place for nobility in all aspects of a nation. This is because immorality and exceptions always exist alongside rules. Thus a class of people “noble” cannot be excluded from society since it would lead to idleness. He adds that nobility is a foreigner. This is because of its civil and political propagative (Sieyès, 1789, p.47). From the definition of a nation “a body of associates living under common laws and represented by the same representative assembly,” nobility gives privilege to a particular group, which means that it is not for the greater good of all citizens. The author thus argues that this exclusive right makes nobility a foreign since it does not comprise the current order. He adds that it is also not subject to the universal laws and thus makes people apart, which makes it an exclusion from a nation. Besides, the author looks at nobility form a political perspective and alleges that the political rights of a distinguished group are exercised separately from a country. Their representation would be different from the general public, which makes it different and cannot comprise a nation since a nation has a broad set of rules for all. Therefore, the author alludes that nobility is far from society and is different from it.
Consequently, it cannot be part of it. He presents origin, power, and aim as the main issue that makes it different. This is because, far from the general rule for all, the nobility is aimed at private benefits, and its power is different from that of the nation. 
 He adds that a privileged group leads to suppression of the weak (Sieyès, 1789, p.117) and thus should be neutralized. According to the author, a nation requires different classes of people for its survival. He recognizes that the functions of society are undertaken by the third estate, and comprises of all activities that the privileges class fail to perform (Sieyès, 1789, p.47). Thus the privileged group only feels in order since they are well paid. Worse, this group precludes the third estate, but they are seen to condone the acts of the privileges since they still fill the posts. Thus this class has significant control of the government to the point that jobs are created to help those that govern and not those who are governed. The author thus alleges for neutralization of the social classes since from history of countries like India and Egypt, they were seen to be destructive and to be against humanity. The author argues that the privileged can fill in the high posts, which is unfair and leads to a lack of natural pricing and compensation of the third estate. Therefore, he is subjective to say that the privileged orders have no good and, if removed, would lead to a better society where people would not be oppressed. Thus this group, the author suggests that they are not good to a nation, but rather hurts it and weaken it. Thus all those who have privileges possess a separate class from the third estate (Sieyès, 1789, p.48). Thus they are people who are fond of overbearing others (Sieyès, 1789, p57). They predominate and are always out to protect their interest. Thus the privileged are identified with the favor of servitude (Sieyès, 1789, p.101). Everything for them is ok and runs smoothly. Therefore they have an outstanding order, and one person can nullify the thoughts of a thousand ordinary persons. Thus the author argues for neutrality. This is because it will strengthen the system, and one would not receive certain services because they are privileges, but because they are a citizen. The author defines opportunity as “By privileged, I mean any man who stands outside common rights, either because he claims freedom in every respect from subjection to the common laws, or because he claims exclusive rights” (Sieyès, 1789, p.112). Therefore a privileged class is a harm to the general. Thus the author calls them harmful advantages not accessed by the others. They can be regarded as a separate class that could be needing a different representation (Sieyès, 1789, p.117). 
In The Virtue of Nationalism Yoram Hazony writes: “the free state, which is likewise constituted and able to endure only due to the bonds of mutual loyalty among its members, is in this respect a collective of the same kind as the family, albeit on a larger scale” (90). According to Hazony, why is the free state a collective of the kind of a family rather than of the kind of a business? What distinguishes the purposes of a family or a free state from the purposes of a business? Why does Hazony think that the bonds (31) and obligations (32) that hold together a family and a frees state do not derive from consent? Why must the free state be a national state?
According to Hazony (2018), a nation is composed of collective bodies of families. The author alleges that the politics that we witness are shaped and are motivated by members of cooperative groups such as families, tribes, and nations (Hazony, 2018, p. 9). As such, humans are born in these collective groups, and they adapt to them, thus they are tied to them. They create strong bonds which we recognize as part of us. Thus the author argues that most politics spin around having the ties and the duties we feel to have been the regards of the bonds that we hold.
Therefore, the free state is a collective nature of families that form a tribes and nation’s. This is not to include the businesses, as the author suggest that property does not create bond. Humans are embedded into social and cultural structures that shape their choices and understanding. Consequently, influencing their behaviour. Behaviour shapes the politics of a nation and all its undertaking, i