It doesn't make those things OK because the argument against those things isn't that they enable the government to act in an authoritarian manner but that they are violations of individuals' right to privacy. Total surveillance is a bad thing in its own right. A CBDC is, as far as I've seen so far, not. And the argument that it should be seen as bad because it could be used for bad things by a bad government doesn't hold water, because preventing a CBDC wouldn't materially restrict the powers the government could wield if it were to become authoritarian.

You're clearly convinced that governments slide inevitably towards authoritarianism and can only be prevented from doing so by practically restricting their powers, but it's a rather backwards way of thinking about things. An authoritarian government takes whatever powers it wants and wipes its arse with any rules that have been written to supposedly prevent it. If an authoritarian government thinks a CBDC will be useful it can just make one. Not that it would have to, because the government's existing powers are already sufficient to implement all the nefarious schemes people are worrying about in this thread.

The way to avoid the threat of an authoritarian government is to have a fair and well run electoral system, a healthy national political dialogue and a well educated population (not that these things are easy), not to assume the government is inevitably going to go bad and block it from implementing useful policies in a futile attempt to curtail the powers of the dictatorship you've convinced yourself it will one day become.