Throwing a label on it doesn’t make it a bad thing. Authority can be a gift. It helps people thrive by giving them the motivation to live up to their potential. If everyone just let everyone else do whatever they wanted, humans wouldn’t have gotten very far. Of course, freedom to choose does a lot of good too. There is a balance to be had.
This is a primary driver of people who believe strongly in the minimalism of government or people like myself who believe that processes that bestow authority need to be extremely cautious, and ideally double-blind and short-lived rather than personality-driven.
The first and third quotes sentences are probably true, but how in the world does authority or authoritarianism give people motivation? Or do you mean that it substitutes for internal motivation the motivation of an external threat? This is probably true, but it is rarely in the state's, or the authority's, interest to maximise each person's potential individually; the authority will rather prefer to maximise each person's contribution to the authority's good, which likely involves forcing each person into a channel that (for at least some and probably many) poorly serves him or her as an individual.
Potential for what? Pleasing the authoritarian. Authority is about who gets to be the author of a person's life - themselves, or someone else. Authoritarians are people who want to be in charge of other people's lives, but don't like to be accountable to anyone else for their own.