Apparently stymied by the Herculian task of actually electing him as president, some supporters of Ron Paul have proposed the next best thing: creating a gated community of Paulites in which they will "live by the ideals of freedom and liberty."
The process is forming a co-op of people buying shares in the community and these people would be granted land use at a minimum of 1 acre per share, for as long as they homesteaded the land. The community would be privately held by the co-op to establish private property for the general community thus preserving the community is 100% freedom and liberty lovers. The community votes on all community efforts, such as utilities etc. However no one is forced to consume these utilities and or pay for them, AKA people can be off grid on their share of land. This is in line with the ideals that you're free to live your life the way you want and not be forced to do or pay for other people's life styles you may not agree with.
Reading about this, I was immediately reminded of the 2004 book, Restoring the Lost Constitution, in which scholar Randy Barnett describes the gated community his parents live in as being less free than nations, despite being based on unanimous consent:
Thus, under conditions of unanimous consent, then, liberty is not inconsistent with both heavy regulation and even the prohibition of otherwise rightful conduct. Ironically, with a governance structure based on unanimous consent, there may be far less freedom of action than in its absence. To the extent that such communitarian constraints on freedom are desirable, this is the context in which they are permissible.
Emphasis in original. I wonder if the denizens of Paulville are aware of this paradox.
--Mori Dinauer
