If the difference between arranged and forced marriage is one of degree, than the difference between employment and slavery is also one of degree.

Ah. (I had taken “by steel manning that” to be modifying “resist” rather than “troll”, and couldn't make sense of it.)

I also think it's plausible. I don't think that would be trolling, I think that would be a highly useful way to examine one's values and ethics. Including your own views.

Consider the hardcore "reactionary" position on such relations of dominance and social control:

...The result was, publically, an ideology that strongly linked the subordination of women and the subordination of blacks with the defense of white liberty and white private property. Few issues were as intricately linked in antebellum times as were black rights and women’s rights. Southern ideologists weren’t alone in noticing that in the North women’s rights activists came almost exclusively out of the ranks of abolitionists. While abolitionists imagined liberty as about individual self-possession and control, Southern ideologues imagined it as household self-possession and control, possession and control being exercised by the white man. George Fitzhugh wrote that abolitionists “give at once the coup de grace to the old world, and to usher in the new golden age, of free love and free lands, of free women and free negroes, of free children and free men.” (these are all bad things, for Fitzhugh). In Cannibals All, he constantly refers to the “women, children, and free negroes” as one group, those fit to be ruled. He also, interestingly, accuses all abolitionists of being socialists: “men once fairly committed to negro slavery agitation - once committed to the sweeping principle, “that man being a moral agent, accountable to God for his actions, should not have those actions controlled and directed by the will of another,”[1] - are, in effect, committed to Socialism and Communism, to the most ultra doctrines of Garrison, Goodell, Smith and Andrews – to no private property, no church, no law, no government, – to free love, free lands, free women and free churches.”

http://phdoctopus.com/2012/03/02/liberty-for-the-few-slavery-in-every-form-for-the-mass-the-deep-roots-of-the-birth-control-freakout/

And the "compassionate conservative" one (from an interview with a British author whom you've linked to, Roger Scruton):

Among the ills of the post-1968 cultural revolution are, apparently, the "deconstructionist, feminist, counter-cultural" ideas that encourage the destruction of all hierarchy. Feminism is an ill? Radical feminism only, it turns out, "which tries to overthrow the whole system of thinking on which we have hitherto depended" as opposed to "the tradition of female emancipation, beginning with Wollstonecraft and people like that, which is I think a completely different thing, and part of the natural reform of our institutions and our way of seeing things." Wollstonecraft was, of course, no friend of Burke's; interesting how radicalism, after the passage of years, can safely be absorbed as tradition.

And gay rights activists? In the past Scruton has written that homophobia is understandable. "I took the view that feeling repelled by something might have a justification, even if it's not a justification that the person themselves can give. Like, we're all repelled by incest – well, not all, but most people are. And there's a perfectly good justification, if you look at it in terms of the long-term interest of society. And in that essay I experimented with the view that maybe something similar can be said about homosexuality. And I don't now agree with that, because I think that – it's such a complicated thing, homosexuality. It's not one thing, anyway. So I wouldn't stand by what I said then." Though yes, "people got very cross".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jun/05/roger-scruton-interview

As you can see, the latter view is inconsistent - as you have said yourself many times before, rallying against the futility and weakness of "mere conservatism", with its aquiescence to nearly any reform. The former view - no government or outsider should restrict a subject's control over his inferiors and subordinates, to do so in any one case is to threaten the whole structure of hierarchy and dominance - certainly seems to be a stable Schelling point. And to prevent any drift from that point, you'd need a ruthless zero-tolerance policy of enforcement.

So what is your judgment here? Any bullets you'd bite on the subject of hierarchy and dominance?

^ (1) The line in italics, although excluded in the linked quote, appears in the source text (Cannibals All: Slaves Without Masters). I assume that you can recognize the significance. Universalism - as a theistic creed or as a secular one - really did make tyrants "fear for their domination."