If you really value the ends above the means then I don't think we can find any common ground. I value freedom above all else, and if that leads to a society of voluntary socialism or capitalism then so be it.

So in a "libertarian" society this point should be rather moot to begin with. If you want to argue that an unregulated free market economy minimizes choice and opportunity for secretaries (or anyone for that matter) then we can go from there. I would completely disagree with any such argument though, and any secretary that seemed "forced" to accept sexual harassment, either explicitly or implicitly, is simply valuing that job's benefits and pay above the negative aspects that are associated with it.

You're using a circular argument by explicitly assuming that the free markets facilitate all the choices. Given an example of a secretary consenting to sexual harassment, you do not challenge your premise (that the free market allow her other options) but assume that this is the highest of her options.

Furthermore, I do not even need to argue that the free market would achieve this opportunities. I value lack of hierarchies and egalitarianism much more than I value the free market. I wish to achieve those two while you wish to achieve a free market and assume that it will bring about those two (or something you think is better). I say that your perspective is flawed.

You disagree because outside interaction with that private property is at the owner's discretion and can facilitate [as you put it] undesirable rules and consequences for others who wish to use that property. However, your disagreements seem to come from the externalities that "force" people to accept these undesirable rules and consequences. If these external forces did not exist your arguments would be baseless.

If these external forces did not exist, private property would be moot in the first place as nobody would consent to any such rules and consequences (i.e. sexual harassment or wage-slavery) when they could go without.

Furthermore I oppose these rules and consequences on their own, not just because they follow from passive coercion. I oppose them on an utilitarian basis that they destroy the happiness of humans. I simply point to the fact that nobody would consent to them given other alternatives to explain why people "voluntarily" accept them now.

So in a "libertarian" society this point should be rather moot to begin with. If you want to argue that an unregulated free market economy minimizes choice and opportunity for secretaries (or anyone for that matter) then we can go from there. I would completely disagree with any such argument though, and any secretary that seemed "forced" to accept sexual harassment, either explicitly or implicitly, is simply valuing that job's benefits and pay above the negative aspects that are associated with it. I do get the feeling though, that you disagree anyone should "deal with" sexual harassment when they would rather have a job without it. But then you'd just be hypocritical if you didn't defend the unfortunate individuals that have to "deal with" 40-hour work weeks, deadlines, dress codes, and unpaid time off.