The first time, that you and I differed in Opinion on any material Question; was after your Arrival from Europe; and that point was the French Revolution. (1) You was well persuaded in your own mind that the Nation would succeed in establishing a free Republican Government: I was as well persuaded, in mine, that a project of such a Government, over five and twenty millions people, when four and twenty millions and five hundred thousands of them could neither write nor read: was as unnatural irrational and impracticable; as it would be over the Elephants Lions Tigers Panthers Wolves and Bears in the Royal Menagerie, at Versailles. (2) Napoleon (3) has lately invented a Word, which perfectly expresses my Opinion at that time and ever since. He calls the Project Ideology. And John Randolph, tho he was 14 years ago, as wild an Enthusiast for Equality and Fraternity, as any of them; appears to be now a regenerated Proselite (4) to Napoleons Opinion and mine, that it was all madness.

The Greeks in their Allegorical Style said that the two Ladies [Aristocracy] and [Democracy], always in a quarrel, disturbed every neighbourhood with their brawls. It is a fine Observation of yours that “Whig and Torey belong to Natural History.” Inequalities of Mind and Body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of Human Nature that no Art or policy can ever plain them down to a Level. I have never read Reasoning more absurd, Sophistry (5) more gross, in proof of the Athanasian Creed, or Transubstantiation, than the subtle labours of Helvetius and Rousseau to demonstrate the natural Equality of Mankind. Jus cuique; the golden rule; do as you would be done by; is all the Equality that can be supported or defended by reason, or reconciled to common Sense.

1. The debate over America’s involvement in France’s revolutionary efforts (1789 - 1799) divided many of the nation’s
Founding Fathers.
2. Versailles was the residence of Louis XVI, the king of France. There, he and much of the nobility lived in excessive
luxury.
3. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) was a French military and political leader who rose to power during the French
Revolution and eventually declared himself the Emperor of France.
4. a person who has converted from one opinion, religion, or party to another
5. the use of false or misleading arguments, especially to deceive

PART A: How do Adams’ opinions on the French Revolution differ from Jefferson’s, according to the letter?

Adams supported Napoleon’s rise to power, whereas Jefferson supported the revolution in France to dethrone him.

Adams thought the French Revolution would not succeed, whereas Jefferson believed in its ideals and success.

Jefferson saw the similarities between the French and American revolutions, whereas Adams thought they were completely different.

Jefferson predicted a peaceful democratic revolution in France, whereas Adams predicted that the aristocracy would remain in power.

Question 2 (2 points)

PART B: Which TWO of the following quotes best support the answer to Part A?

“You was well persuaded in your own mind that the Nation would succeed in establishing a free Republican Government” (Paragraph 2)

“Napoleon has lately invented a Word, which perfectly expresses my Opinion at

that time and ever since.” (Paragraph 2)

“John Randolph... as wild an Enthusiast for Equality and Fraternity, as any of them; appears to be now a regenerated Proselite to Napoleons Opinion and

mine, that it was all madness.” (Paragraph 2)

“the two Ladies [Aristocracy] and [Democracy], always in a quarrel, disturbed every neighbourhood with their brawls.” (Paragraph 3)

“It is a fine Observation of yours that ‘Whig and Torey belong to Natural History.’” (Paragraph 3)

“I have never read Reasoning more absurd, Sophistry more gross... than the subtle labours of Helvetius and Rousseau” (Paragraph 3)

i love this article you wrote. it is intresting and i was convinced by it. at the ending you could say something like this, "support robots today if you agree." but so far so good. you did an awesome job : ).

explanation:

b

explanation:

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this