A few econ oddities

[Fox-McCloud]

There's a few questions that positively/negatively impact the economic/market axis that are a bit confusing, and, in my opinion, should be reworked.

To this end, there's a few that seem odd:
"question": "I support regional unions, such as the European Union.",

This one is odd because generally those of a market-oriented persuasion are going to be of no opinion on if the EU is good or bad, as this is more of a societal/progressive question than necessarily a governmental/economic one. Someone who is market oriented isn't going to care about a union or not; they're only going to care about trade policy of their country. For example; someone could support fierce EU independence, but still ultimately come out very strongly in favor of trade deals with other EU nations.

"question": "Military spending is a waste of money.",

This one should definitely have an economic component to it; those who are more market oriented are inherently going to be against governmental spending.

"question": "All people - regardless of factors like culture or sexuality - should be treated equally."

This one doesn't have much to do with market forces at all; "treated equally" is likewise, ambiguous; is it equal treatment before the law? Equal treatment in terms of lack of judgment? Equality of results?

"question": "It is important that we further my group's goals above all others.",

This isn't even remotely an economic question; this should purely be a societal/civil rights/diplomacy issue.

[JoshuaKimsey]

For the first question, regional unions almost always share a free-market trade component to them. Now I will admit that I am against the EU but am a supporter of rational free-trade. So indeed, the question might need to be reworded a bit to be more of either a political or economic question

For the second one, you are at least partially correct. However, it has to be asked if you are against it because of moral reasons, aka you are antiwar, or economic reasons, you are against government spending? And I must admit, that question fails to differentiate between the two possible options. Rewording is most likely needed.

The third question does carry an economic component to it. Specifically, the hiring practices business have to follow. In a fully "equal treatment" system, business might be forced to have quotas for hiring they have to achieve. This would most definitely impact a business economically!

For the forth question, that's not necessarily a non-economic question! Anarcho-Capitalist would disagree with you on that conclusion, as would many Libertarians, Objectivists, and even some Conservatives. And by this logic, Classical Marxist/Communist would also disagree with you as well. Groups can be united by economics just as much by social issues.

Overall though, I do think the first two questions do need to be reworded to clear up ambiguity that exists in their exact meaning.

[Fox-McCloud]

For the first question, regional unions almost always share a free-market trade component to them. Now I will admit that I am against the EU but am a supporter of rational free-trade. So indeed, the question might need to be reworded a bit to be more of either a political or economic question

They typically do, but it's not an inherent function. It is still hypothetically possible, even in a union, for member states to enact trade barriers against each other (and as a matter of fact, this does exist currently; the USA's individual States' barring of purchase of health insurance across lines is an example of this).

For the second one, you are at least partially correct. However, it has to be asked if you are against it because of moral reasons, aka you are antiwar, or economic reasons, you are against government spending? And I must admit, that question fails to differentiate between the two possible options. Rewording is most likely needed.

It could be framed either way, but most of the questions seem to be intentionally framed to encompass multiple dimensions simultaneously (which, as an aside, I'd argue is probably where most of the contentiousness of the alignment of the questions comes from). If this is indeed the focus and to remain that, then I don't think leaving off the econ portion of this in favor of making it a "purely moral" question is in line with the rest of the test.

The third question does carry an economic component to it. Specifically, the hiring practices business have to follow. In a fully "equal treatment" system, business might be forced to have quotas for hiring they have to achieve. This would most definitely impact a business economically!

This is ultimately what I object to; what's the author's goals with this question? The language is ambiguous which may lead to some confusion; the most strict version is as you've outlined, but I could easily see someone interpret the "equality" to be "equal treatment before the law", which wouldn't really have much (if any) economic component to it.

For the forth question, that's not necessarily a non-economic question! Anarcho-Capitalist would disagree with you on that conclusion, as would many Libertarians, Objectivists, and even some Conservatives. And by this logic, Classical Marxist/Communist would also disagree with you as well. Groups can be united by economics just as much by social issues.

I guess this comes down to interpretation; in the light you've presented it, I'm not sure any group would realistically disagree with the question unless they were unsure of their own guiding principles or something of a similar nature. I guess my interpretation of this was inherently use of force to further those goals, which would inherently be against the social and economic value scales.