Maybe. Maybe not.
I was President of a very small HOA years ago. If I spotted a rules violation I would typically just ignore it. I only acted upon explicit complaints from members.
In the case of a complaint, I had perhaps a hundred or a hundred and fifty pages of founding documents and bylaws to guide me in taking action. Following those documents carefully protected me from personal attacks and disgruntled members had to face the burden of changing the bylaws; not an easy process.
The difference with FreeRepublic would be that the "bylaws" would all be authored by the founders of FR and subject to immediate modification if it suited them. Instead of arguing about whether some moderator's decision was justified or not, people would be arguing over whether the rules were justified or not. They would be different arguments but still there would be arguments.
Another way to look at the situation is that the "bylaws of FreeRepublic" are in the heads of the founders. It is not necessary or useful for us to have them written down because they would still be subject to change at any time. Instead, we must try to predict what the founders will decide in any given case. Any particular decision is subject to change at any time. The difference is that we don't have a membership that must agree on changes. We have founders who have to simply decide that a change is needed.
Not a democracy. Not a republic. More like private property and participation by invitation.
I agree; and if someone isn’t happy with the rules (or lack thereof), they are free to leave.
Guess I think things differently; been told that many times in many places. 😉