Well, apparently I'm exactly in the middle on economic issues, and a little to the right on social issues.

Since I'm basically a libertarian, I don't exactly buy it. I had a hard time with a lot of the questions. For example-should a company's only priority be towards profit? Morally speaking, no, but I firmly believe that the government should not be interfering and making those choices. It's the difference between what I'd do as a CEO or a politician. It's one thing to set a moral course for yourself, another thing to judge another's, and another thing to try to impose it on someone else.

Should a billionare hoard all of his money for himself? No, I believe individuals should help contribute to society, charity, and the church. But should a billioniare be forced by the government to have his money spent on innumerable charities? I don't think so-such a move doesn't just redistribute wealth-it changes the incentives for gaining money in the first place.

I just have a hard time accepting the results of a test like this when I want to argue about the meaning of every single question. It got me thinking, but it wasn't specific enough, and there wasn't always one right answer that represented what I thought.

There was a test a while back on politics that I really liked-that asked a wide range of questions, with a lot of possible answers, and allowed you to mark the importance of an issue to you. Unfortunately, it went down, like many others, after the election.

Mark"RHIT4EVER"N