The acronym reads as Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance, hahaha. Anyway, I'm going to comment both on the absurdity of the D&D alignment system, and also on the absurdity of applying it to real people.
Law vs. Chaos is a pretty silly axis. It's easy to understand in theory: Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability, while Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. In practise, it's a false dichotomy which opens up a floodgate of questions. What if the norms of a particular culture favour freedom and non-conformity? What if a character doesn't recognise an authority as legitimate? What if a character is rebelling against the status quo while adhering to an ethical code? If one oath contradicts another, would a character still be Lawful when they end up compromising or going back on their word? Is a character Lawful if their code advocates deceit, gambling, or thievery? Is an anarchist Chaotic if they believe in social order derived from cooperation between equals? Can a Cleric be Chaotic if they are dutifully fulfilling the mandates of their Chaotic deity, which is in itself Lawful?
If I was a DM, I would do away with Law vs. Chaos, but that's assuming I wouldn't also do away with a morality games mechanic altogether. The D&D alignment system is one of deontological ethics, where a character's alignment would shift up and down the scale depending on their actions, usually without taking into consideration their intentions or the consequences of their actions. So, a character could do lots of good deeds, but do so without altruistic intentions if they only want fame or fortune, which would mean they're not technically a "good person". In contrast, a character could have a change of heart, but unless it reflects in their actions, they would still show up as Evil on the character sheet because of their karma meter. This opens up another can of worms about whether anyone can find redemption, but that's a topic for another thread. From a deontological standpoint, murder would always be an evil act, but from a utilitarian moral standpoint, it would be eviler not to pull the lever and kill one person to save five others (the infamous trolley problem).
If I had a gun pointed at my head and was forced to give myself a D&D alignment, I'd say I'd be Neutral. I generally focus on my own wellbeing and needs, but I'm not exploitative, manipulative, or cruel. I'm a free spirit at heart, but I'm willing to make compromises so I can benefit from living and working in society. Still, identifying as having those qualities doesn't put me in any kind of minority. Considering most people would probably be varying shades of neutral, it makes the whole exercise of applying D&D alignments to the complexity of real people rather pointless.