I did this test before, I find the answers quite biased.
I'll take the test (again) and see what I get though, I'll just edit this post.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.75&soc=-0.97
I always considered myself somewhat authoritaritive with no real prejeduice towards any ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion.
I do have problems with certain idealogies, such as free market capitalism. People with certain backgrounds as well, those backgrounds generally going with the heridetary rich and ignorant(I don't mean successful businessmen, I mean spoiled and prepped aristrocrats, and this is just due to poor experience with this particular social class due to that ignorance), as well as general assclowns and do nothing maggots who won't get off their asses for anything. The people I respect are ones who prove their usefulness by managing to be proficient at something or find contentment while contributing some labour. That and people who make themselves their own place in society by rising themselves from rock bottom to the top, or at least to be financially stable.
For the state itself, I wouldn't mind living in a somewhat militaristic state as long as the state itself covered the costs of basic healthcare and infranstructure, with private companies being able to compete with their own healthcare and other sorts of industries as well. The government can also curb foriegn companies to make sure they don't monopolize industries that could be controlled by more helpful local industries.
In short, something like this would be accurate to describe me.
Something close to Autocratic Fascism minus the genocidal craphood and other discrimination, more relying on a unified sense of nationalism that disregards ethnic, religous or the majority of most social backgrounds. Strength through unity, unity through strength.
Using a this strong sense of nationalism, the main goal of the state is its survival. Survival is the core belief of the state, and its what is preached. People will not be ordered around in their spare time, they can do what they please as long as it does not break the code of laws which would be something standard and similar to most socieities we all live in.
For one thing, I honestly could give two ****s about democracy in total. That deosn't mean people have no civil or human rights, I just find elections in a parliament system to be an utter waste of time, and they can be chaotic or expensive in other forms of democracy. So in short, no real democratic politics occur at a represenative level. People have their decisionmaking through government census and other such things so the ruling body can try to meet the populations specified needs.
Also, if you lose your job and have worked for a number of years, which would be recorded once in a bit in annual checkups, you would be able to use the state as a crutch to get back up on your feet. After all, what sort of nation deosn't support it's true workers? Labour disgraces no man. But sometimes, men disgrace labour, and those would be your atypical lazy ass bastards who half ass and disgrace themselves.
Im suprised im not more authoritarian given that aspect, granted my more survivalistic outlook on life, but ah well.
