Galt's Gulch Revisited: Paulville

I hate it when Libertarians (with a capital "L") disappoint me by falling into conformist-style thinking. Case in point: Paulville. From the Paulville website:
The goal of is to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty. . . . 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 very concept of a having a gated community based on the philosophies of its residents is kind of sad. Most libertarians (small "L") are in favor of diversity of opinion. What they (and I) don't like is coercion. What happens if someone moves to Paulville, and then changes his or her opinion? What if they become card-carrying communists? Do they get kicked out? The website says that:
[t]he 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 [sic] 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.
It seems to me that the project will be pretty ineffective in protecting its members from government or social coercion (taxes, laws). All it seems to do is collect like-minded people on a plot of land. [as far as I know, you don't have to consume utilities if you don't want to.] It might be a better idea to establish libertarian-leaning majorities in small municipalities, similar to the Free State Project. At least a simple majority doesn't obscure all diversity of thought in a particular jurisdiction.