I wrote this in response to a direct personal message through Reddit.

Hey!

OK, so I'll summarize what follows in one sentence: there is more than way to accomplish a goal, and we are not intimidated by haters.

We both know and acknowledge the problems that trolls, inconsiderate people, and shills have caused.

With respect to those problems, the ideas you suggest to solve these problems -- essentially, absolute moderator tolerance to any speech, no matter how destructive -- have been tried already. They are already in practice in /r/ancap. In my view, such attitude has aggravated rather than solved the problem.

One of the reasons I started the new subreddit is precisely to experiment with a radically different approach to solving these problems. An approach that would integrate heavy moderation to keep undesirable and destructive people out.

Time will tell if I was right in my approach.

In particular, if I am correct in my theories, after a while you should be able to see a significantly more polite, constructive and pleasant community. This can only be a good thing, as that potential reality can only bring more adherents to the causes of voluntaryism and non-violence.

And, if I am wrong, nothing of value was lost.

I have a personal hypothesis that moderators of most subreddits approach moderation with a hands-off, very-few-and-lax-rules, for three reasons. (A) because they hate being criticized, (b) because they fear that the criticisms will give their sub a "bad rep", and (c) because they fear that continued criticism will result in them being demoted as mods.

Now, since mods wield some exceptional measure of power over others, that naturally makes them targets of criticisms -- almost always supported using false pretenses and arguments -- deliberately designed to demoralize the mods and delegitimize their actions. And you wouldn't believe the amount of people who immediately jump in anger and call a moderator names for his actions, or (at least try) to organize a witch hunt against a moderator. I should show you my inbox.

Furthermore, it is a natural and well-studied human tendency to shy away from criticism and to be on the side of the "minority". Nobody likes being called Stalin or Pol Pot for removing a post, right?

Thus, since a mod who doesn't take any particular ban or removal action, is at less risk of being criticized and losing his power, that is the natural "default" choice or dynamics for most moderators. In effect, mods tend to prefer clinging onto their power and not acting, rather than risking the "bad PR" and "bad will" that people criticizing them generates.

It is precisely to to offset these reasons pushing mods not to moderate, I have explicitly established comprehensive guidelines giving them extensive power to suppress destructive participation in our community, and I have given all our moderators a fair amount of leeway in applying them.

As for the idea that there is a "rift": there is none.

There is no choice to make between /r/ancap and /r/aaa. People can subscribe to both communities at the same time.

If people prefer /r/aaa, that's great. If people prefer /r/ancap, that's great too. If people prefer both over other subreddits, even better.

So, quite literally, no one can legitimately claim "well, the creation of /r/aaa has damaged /r/ancap" in any way.

One thing we won't do, we mustn't do, is fold.

Just because there are some people -- either ignorant or malicious -- who slander and levy false accusations against us, and mock us, doesn't mean I have to stop putting my ideas in practice.

Heck, if "but other people are saying bad things about us" was a valid argument, no one would be an ancap to begin with. Right? Do you just abdicate being an ancap because a mentally deficient or propagandized person yells "fascist!" at you? No, right? So why would we stop moderating and cultivating our community because the same old agitpropists yell "fascist!" at us?

I suppose what I am trying to say is: If we gave a shit about what people think, we would all be Christian social democrat war mongerers. So, exactly what is new today, that we suddenly ought to start listening to what idiots say about us?

And let's be frank: strategically, it would be a horrible mistake to fold in the face of hateful criticisms. That would only prove to the haters and opportunists, who latched on this incident to "confirm" their hateful beliefs, that they can use hate and slander to manipulate and intimidate others to get their way.

So yes, let us take the true high road. Just ignore the barking dogs -- they will go away -- and let's walk together in the defense of voluntary relationships.