Given that you accused me of ignoring reality because I questioned…

I said you seemed to be ignoring "the established context," i.e. the context I was asking about.

Yes, this would be about the same time you edited your post to change what you had written after I had already replied. But sure, you seem to think that admonishing someone for pretending to be moral while currently in the process of continuing the enslavement of other human beings is speaking out of context of a discussion centered around the morality of slavery. I guess.

I proposed that if their "right to act in their own self interest" is for whatever reason not an option

To which I replied that there is no existing or possible case of this. You can claim that it isn't a viable or reasonable option, but then you would actually have to demonstrate how this could ever realistically be the case. I don't blame you for not attempting this.

their enslavement by a kind man is preferable to their enslavement by a cruel one. I don't know why you're so much against such a simple evaluation.

Because it rests on an absurd premise in order to validate a morally bankrupt perspective? Because it closely matches the actual arguments used in history to support slavery? Take your pick.

This is why I called your evaluation naive. You think slavery happens in a vacuum, one person arbitrarily deciding to enslave another for no reason other than personal gain (muh dualism) and that if they hadn't done so the other person would have walked free.

You are shadow boxing now. Nothing I have said implies or entails any of this, so I'm not going to bother responding to this failed characterization, whose only purpose is to attempt the validation of a personal insult.

If every large or complex firm we've ever seen has involved some form of hierarchy, I'm justified to infer that hierarchhy is a necessary component of large or complex firms until I either see one that lacks it or can come up with some explanation for how it would be possible.

Are business organizations (aka "firms) the only form of human social organization? Are business organizations the only organizations that have ever engaged in complex production? At what point does an organization become "large", such that it necessarily requires hierarchy where before it did not? What do you mean by hierarchy? Have you ever heard of the rhetorical device of defining away your point?

It has also been demonstrated that large-scale and high complexity production can take place in the absence of "leadership". Don't you dare ask me for an example

Please provide an example.

You do realize, I hope, that you still have not provided a single example of an organization that does require leadership in order to maintain large-scale complexity? I'm not being pedantic here, we both know they exist, but sweeping your hand across all economies of all time and saying "they all do, all the time and always under all possible circumstances" tells us nothing. It tells me nothing of the metrics you are using to define your vague terms, it tells me nothing of how to respond without falling into an inevitable rhetorical trap in which you characterize all possible human social organization as being inherently hierarchical. You known, as you did earlier in the conversation when trying to justify benign slavery, before the backpedaling began.

this shouldn't be understood to mean there would be absolutely no centralization at all (the mere concept of "social ownership" would be incoherent otherwise).

So now "social ownership" inherently implies, or involves, centralization? How so?

anarchists have known what I'm telling you for a long time now

I'm fully aware of this.

which would seem contrary to your claim that my perspective somehow implies anarchism is a "false ideology" (whatever that means).

Who was chiding me about removing things from the context of our discussion? My claims in this regard were in direct reference to your claims concerning supposedly moral slave owners, which Bakunin was not referencing in any form.

By the way, I clearly stated what I meant by the phrase "false ideology" right after I used it, in case you failed to get through the entire sentence.

Probable? No, I said it was certainly not one of social equity, because no human relationship truly is.

Lets go back to you quoting Bakunin. I would love to see you do it here as well, then attempt to imply that Bakunin (or any other prominent anarchist), agrees with this extremely broad, subjective and totally unfalsifiable axiomatic statement. Then, you can undermine anarchism internally, by actually demonstrating that far from seeking to abolish human social domination, any anarchist who is not naive will accept it as inevitable from the outset. That is what I mean, for the second time, by a "false ideology".

those being commanded not having a say in the matter (which it might, depending on whether we want it to).

This is precisely where your argument goes so wrong. Depending on whether who wants it to? The people being commanded? You, as the slave master? You, as some arbitrating third party? If those being commanded are the ones who get to decide being commanded means they have no say in the matter, then they explicitly have a say in the matter. If they don't, then the commands are just that, commands, not suggestions, and your attempt to avoid my "dislike" of the term is in fact a conflation of the very point under contention.

This is exactly parallel to your slavery scenario. If the slaves themselves get to decide whether or not it is best for them to "remain" as slaves, then they are not and cannot actually be slaves. If, on the other hand, they cannot make such a decision, then no amount of equivocating and speculating on your part about their self interest will override the fact that only their conception of their own self interest matters when determining what that self interest actually entails. If you are overriding that conception in order to "help" them, then you are automatically not helping them, but dominating them and preventing them from helping themselves. What is worse, you are claiming that you can do so while being moral, while taking the high ground that at least you are the best of slave masters when, in fact, you are just the same in the only sense that matters.