People in the USA still complain in the same way today about laws mandating seat belt usage, but it's still not authoritarian. It's a net positive for the wearer and everyone around them, and it's incredibly childish to push back on something for no other reason than because someone is telling you to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_road_de...
In the EU, Germany infamously has roads with no speed limits, but its traffic fatality rate isn't high either.
Germany only has no speed limits on some Autobahns. But you mostly end up in a Stau or Baustelle anyway, so it's not that exciting.
This is literally the argument autocrats use for any authoritarian law they pass.
Otherwise, the typical government is a central authority made up of people, carrying out lawmaking, adjudication, and enforcement activities [0], and so basically all of them could be characterized this way, with sufficient bad faith. So I'm not sure that's a very meaningful claim.
It definitely could be a misuse of power regardless though, but there's no evidence that I see in your comment that would suggest it was the officials in question misusing their powers rather than aligning with community sentiment or interests.
For example, the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior and has nothing to do with consolidate of authority
* Some of your political opponents will be homosexual, so it gives you an avenue to remove them. You can turn a blind eye to your political allies, if they are discrete.
* You can use the accusation to persecute anyone.
* It sets the frame that the authority governs every private aspect of your life.
Only there are even more people who do not wear seat belts than practicing homosexuals, i.e. by your logic, a fine for not wearing a seat belt is MORE AUTHORITARIAN than the law on persecuting homosexuals.
While I agree that we shouldn’t have laws regulating seatbelt usage (for adults), I find your comparison disgusting and think it does more harm than good for gaining support.
I have unfortunately missed out on that then, because I both do not recognize it as authoritarian behavior, nor do I recognize that recognition to be widely established at all.
There is a distinct correlation between authoritarian regimes and homosexuals being persecuted that I'm also aware of, but this is absolutely the first time I've ever heard someone describe the persecution of homosexuals as an authoritarian behavior.
Maybe we read the phrase here different? When I read "authoritarian behavior" I do not read it as "behavior associated with authoritarians", but instead as "behavior that is authoritarian in its nature".
> absolutely the first time I've ever heard someone describe the persecution of homosexuals as an authoritarian behavior
Google defines "authoritarian" even more broadly than I do:
> favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
So I would say that that recognition is established extremely wide.