Whether or not your position is right or wrong, forcing it on others is objectionable, if not objectively morally wrong (according to Peter Singer).
This is how positive moral sentiment moves into a tyrannical position of fascist coercion by dictating “the good” as necessary.
The role of the authoritarian (parent/politician/priest) is to say, “You are acting against your own best interests, and I will not let you damage yourself or this family.”
Yet, from which stance is this “harm” prevented by the leader: common sense (popular consensus) or expertise (technical mastery)? Nebulous, unconscious ego compensation (blindly subjective desires, such as daddy issues, libidinal pathology, sadomasochism, or transference)? Or is it legal (judicial)? Technical expertise and judicial knowledge are drawn from academic and regulatory bodies, so they seem more impartial, but they can also be emotively distorted to serve subjective, relative ends.
Never being coercive or authoritarian is not to find yourself in the right: you are still wrong but in a less visible way. Denying holding a position for fear of coercion smuggles in a more slippery sin: avoiding responsibility is also not of “the good” or “the right.”