The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is no force of law in public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "thou shall not covet" and "thou shall not steal" are not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. What does Adams believe about the right to property? Check all that apply. property must be recognized as sacred and should be protected by law failure to protect the right of property can lead to a chaotic society property doesn’t need to be protected by law according to God, people should not steal property is not as valuable as the laws of God

failure to protect the right of property can lead to a chaotic society

Explanation:

This paragraph claims that properties should be protected by right and not seen to be undeserving of a legal backing since they are viewed as less sacred. It further points out the possible tyranny and anarchy that might emerge if properties are not backed with a force of justice to protect them.

Considering the excerpts from Adams in the question, what he believed about the property right is that:

This is evident when he said that "anarchy and tyranny commence" when there is no public law or the belief of the laws of God in the sacredness of the land.

Also, he suggested that "if thou shall not covet" and "thou shall not steal" are not part of God's law, the society itself should embrace the idea, otherwise, such society will not be considered civilized nor free.

Hence, in this case, the correct answer is: "property must be recognized as sacred and should be protected by law; failure to protect the right of property can lead to a chaotic society."

Learn more here: link

the correct answer is "cut spending on social programs."good luck

explanation:

explanation: we can only guess at how our actions may be perceived in the future. doing something really big like killing lots of people, saving lots of people, affecting the lives of lots of people is a sure fire way of being remembered in historical records. we can also make a difference in the history records by being a small influence on something bigger, whether that is as a civil servant, scientist or artist.

of course you could argue that we all affect history just as tiny cogs in a   bigger machine.

if you mean how do people influence our opinions of things which have already happened, then simply by writing a book which looks at things form a different perspective and trying to convince people that this perspective is more accurate or truthful. people do it all the time i.e. richard the third was a terrible or was he? plenty would disagree, it's just that their views aren't the most widely known.n: