> If you're all-knowing and all-good, great. Otherwise seems like a pretty gross violation of basic human rights - what about the false positives... We could temporarily solve many of the world's problems if we had more authoritarianism, but it never ends well in fiction or in real life.
I think this is a broad argument that applies equally to prison, too; would you bite that bullet and argue for abolishing prison as well? If not, I think your conclusion is a bit hyperbolic.
In practice the discussion is (should be) quite nuanced. If someone is a clear and present danger to themselves or others due to mental instability, then it seems reasonable to me to confine them until that danger is resolved. But of course, that's a slippery slope and so the danger should be clear and substantial, and involuntary commitment should not be an indefinite thing, a tool used to take homeless off the streets, for example. A robust and independent ethics board reviewing decisions is an important component.
One thing to note is that lots of other countries do this, and the US is something of an outlier; one could just look at other countries for examples to evaluate whether this idea would present a terrible slide into authoritarianism. For example, in the UK: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/social-care-and-your-rights....
One could also do an A/B test by analyzing California circa 1972 when the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act ended involuntary commitment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman%E2%80%93Petris%E2%80.... Was the US more authoritarian in the 60s, when involuntary commitment was common? It's reasonable to suggest it was overused (see, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest), but so were many medical practices (see, forced sterilization of women). I think it's reasonable to suppose that we use a lighter touch if we tried again.
Fortunately, this is an issue that lots of smart people write on already: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/07/reverse-voxsplaining-p....