One man who won't be moving there anytime soon: Ron Paul.
"I don't think that's the solution," says the still-running Republican presidential candidate. "You want to spread out and be as pervasive as possible."
The driving idea behind Paulville -- that likeminded lovers of liberty should band together -- is not a new one. In 2003, thousands of libertarians vowed to move to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. Paul was no more sanguine on that effort, saying that population spillover from Massachusetts had overwhelmed it.
"They outnumbered us, the liberals leaving Massachusetts," he says. "They wanted to pay less taxes, but then again, they wanted more government and they outnumbered the ones who wanted less government."
Paulville, meanwhile, is much less likely than New Hampshire to attract Massachusetts liberals. But it does boast some green possibilities that a Northeast liberal might like. Snuggled deep into West Texas, the plot, according to Paulville.org, was chosen for its high amount of sunshine -- the better to power solar panels and keep off the grid.
The community is structured as a co-op; freedom-loving denizens can purchase plots as small as one acre and are not required to use the co-op's water or energy supply.
But dropping out and creating an isolated community isn't the answer, says Paul, a congressman from Texas. "You don't want the ideas to be centered in one place," he says. "But it shows how desperate people are for freedom."
Consistent with his beliefs in liberty, however, he doesn't outright oppose Paulville. "I don't see that as a solution, but it can't hurt anything either," he says.
Paul's non-endorsement of Paulville comes at what seems to be a perilous time for the infant community. On Monday, just days after the announcement of the land purchase, the Web site Paulville.org went out of existence. No contact information had been on the site when it was live; phone calls and e-mails to the site administrator over the last several days have gone unreturned.