Ian’s Speech At the First NH Gubernatorial Debate (Hassan Chickens Out)

Tuesday evening, I had the pleasure of being able to speak for up to ten minutes in front of the first New Hampshire gubernatorial debate. There will be no democrat debate, since both of the other democrat candidates refused to respond to the invitation from Franklin Pierce University. I’m grateful to the organizers at FPU for the opportunity to speak despite the other candidates’ absence.

It’s kind of surreal to watch a voluntarist (me) speak truth to power about the criminal state while standing in front of that very state’s flag (gang insignia), yet, it actually happened:

(And only possible in New Hampshire.)

Here’s the speech in written form:

I’m Ian Freeman and I’m one of the chairs of the New Hampshire Liberty Party, running as a Democrat in the primary against Maggie Hassan. I’m here at the republican debate with the privilege talking to you today because Maggie Hassan refused to debate me.

Politicians are a cowardly, cruel bunch, aren’t they? Maggie Hassan for instance, refused to sign the medical cannabis legislation until home grow provisions were removed. Because of her, sick people who grow plants are considered criminals in New Hampshire and can be imprisoned for years. To me, Maggie Hassan and the others who support prohibition are the criminals.

Maybe that’s one reason why she doesn’t want to debate. It’s probably pretty embarrassing to be called out as a criminal in public, when it’s your job to make gang activity look legitimate.

Isn’t that ultimately what “the state” is? Now, I’m not talking about the land, mountains, lakes, forests, and good people of NH. I’m talking about the people calling themselves the government – they’re really just a criminal gang. You will do as you are told, or else they will hurt you, put you in a cage, or possibly kill you. Some of them claim that there is a “social contract” that excuses their behavior, but I don’t recall signing anything like that, do you?

Not only did you not sign this alleged “social contract”, but even if you did, what would be the terms? The definition of “citizen” is one who owes a duty of allegiance in return for an obligation of protection. Well, what if I told you the government, at all levels, has no obligation to protect you?

Don’t take my word for it – take the word of the supreme court – in case after case. Just take a moment to google “no obligation to protect” and you’ll find Warren Vs. DC and other cases where it’s made pretty clear that no government at any level has an obligation to provide you with protection or any other services.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying your local police wouldn’t do their best to help you if you were in danger – many of them are good people. It’s just that there’s no obligation for them to do anything at all and there’s also next to no liability when they do something wrong. Of course, the higher up you go from local government, the less humane and empathetic they become.

In fact, even if I were elected to governor, I wouldn’t be able to swear the oath of office. The oath requires I swear allegiance to the United States government – the biggest criminal gang known to mankind. As a lover of liberty, I couldn’t swear such an oath. I could swear an oath to working to advance freedom, which is the opposite of what the government generally does.

Ideally, New Hampshire should declare independence from the United States Federal Government. The feds don’t do anything for us but steal from you, control you, and create terrorism by slaughtering people around the world. It’s time for the good people of New Hampshire to withdraw from the Federal Government. I recommend visiting the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence to learn more about how we can peacefully declare independence. Their website is nhindependence.org,

Politicians all have some vision for society that they want to force upon you whether you want it or not. For many democrats AND republican politicians, that means they want more government intrusion into your life. I think that’s the wrong way to go. Freedom is the answer, to any question. That’s why I’m one of the founders of the New Hampshire Liberty Party. You may ask why I’m running as a democrat, if I am part of the New Hampshire Liberty Party.

The primary reason is that it’s highly difficult for third parties to run for office in New Hampshire. The republicans and democrats have created ballot access requirements that unfairly restrict third parties like the Libertarians, Greens, and the New Hampshire Liberty Party from getting our candidates on the ballot. For instance, had I wanted to run under the New Hampshire Liberty Party, I’d have to have gotten 3,000 petition signatures statewide. Petitioning is hard work and if you want it done well, you have to pay people – usually one dollar per petition. Now the people at the elections office will attempt to disqualify as many petitions as possible, so you’ll probably need to collect 5,000 just to be safe. That’s $5,000 just to file for governor.. However, I could instead simply pay $100 to the secretary of state, as I did, and run as either a republican or a democrat. No signatures required.

The election system is discriminatory and unfair, so I chose to align myself with a major party for my run. I chose democrat so I could challenge Maggie Hassan and call her out on her lack of compassion toward cannabis users and encourage you, dear listener to seriously consider the idea of New Hampshire declaring independence.

Thanks for your attention and consideration.

Again, I’m Ian Freeman and I’m the pro-liberty candidate running for governor in the democrat primary. If you’d like to learn more about me and the New Hampshire Liberty Party, please visit nhliberty.info, that’s nhliberty.info

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Nice Job Ian. I’m amazed the haters haven’t blown this thread up yet. Is you just you and queen coward on the ballot? Does Free Keene work the NH libertarians at all on ballot access?

  2. Hey … when are you moving your kiddie porn business to Keene? We want to know when so we can give the police the heads-up.

    Bernard is just another freetard loser that listens to other freetard losers who tell him how “wonderful” he is. Hassan won’t give this know-nothing twit the time of day, because then he’ll just use it to claim that he’s a candidate taken “seriously” by his opponents.

    The only thing this asswipe is serious about is shagging young girls.

  3. “Politicians all have some vision for society that they want to force upon you whether you want it or not.

    OMG … too funny. You freetards have your own vision for society that you wish to force upon all of us whether we want it or not. Get a fucking clue, you loser.

  4. I’ve met his girlfriend several times. She’s definitely a woman rather than a girl, and even according to the statute books that you jerk off to (being the mentally retarded statist loser that you are), Ian’s relationship with her is legal.

  5. The absence of force doesn’t entail forcing anything on anyone, imbecile.

  6. actually bane does have a point about forcing their views upon others. by running for governor and stating that NH should withdraw, he is voicing his opinion. by being elected and trying to do away with certain laws and sending the federal government anything that has to do with withdrawing, they are forcing their ideals of society upon others. running is the first step to using this force. you need to step back and look at the whole picture with a clear mind.

    I have seen FSP and FK members claiming that when the military goes and “invades” another land with the words following “we are here to free you” it is considered force. now not all force is done with guns bud.

  7. Wrong, you can still practice statism in a libertarian society. As long as your members aren’t forced into joining and contributing to your state.

    However you cant be a practicing libertarian in a Statist society, they force you to be a financial contributor and follower of their state.

  8. Is it just me or does Bane really seem to have a thing for little kids?

  9. Is it just me or does Bane really seem to have a thing for little kids and child pornography?

  10. I figured that had to be the case when he made such a big deal out of it last time I ran into the douche on youtube.

  11. Well, Ian doesn’t plan to be elected, and I believe he stated something about not taking office if he were. Nevertheless, the logic you use is the same logic by which I don’t vote for politicians (I vote for initiatives and referenda in my state which I feel obviously reduce government force and vote against those which I feel obviously increase it.) A lot of the time, I don’t even vote on those, because the outcome is unclear.

  12. So stopping people from using force on us and claiming ownership over us, constitutes us riding roughshod over others?

  13. Oh yeah. When he ran the failed martial arts center in Keene, he had access to lots of them, too. Now he’s groping old ladies and what not down in Florida.

  14. No … but I guess a slut like you would think that.

  15. LoL … wow – you really have no clue who I am, douchebag. Not even close.

  16. Back to name calling, put it on the table. H.J. Miller, more than a cute pic, wins.

  17. Forgive Bane, he knows not what he does.

  18. The m a j o r i t y of us like the way things are, so you and the other freetards automatically lose. We have laws, and you must obey them. If you don’t – we put you in jail. That’s not “ownership” – that’s how a civil society operates. I know you’re too stupid at a genetic level to understand what I’m writing, but there it is nonetheless. You don’t like it – then leave. Bye-bye.

  19. Leave and find another country, then – no one is stopping you. I’m sure with all the STD’s you’re probably incubating right now we would all be better off.

  20. You’re such a violent bitch Hallie. Go troll somewhere else.

  21. No, actually, a mob operates by majority rule – it doesn’t take a society to manage majority rule, because that can happen automatically. A civil society is one in which the majority is /not/ permitted to forcefully control the minority. That’s what the civil society does, which makes it worthy of note: it restrains the majority, who otherwise would be free to oppress the minority. If you claim to be part of the majority, then you are, by definition, claiming to be precisely whom the civil society needs to restrain.

  22. Better idea: why don’t /you/ leave, rather than trying to ruin this one? Plenty of other countries that operate on your ridiculous theories. Why not go there? Why try and destroy America?

  23. did the citizens of keene ask these people to come there and free them? or did FK and FSP come unasked and decide that the citizens needed freeing? if it is the second choice, yes force is being used against peaceful citizens.

  24. “statism” would actually not be allowed in a libertarian society. from most of what i read libertarians are against ANY form of state or government. so your idea of statism in a libertarian society is flawed

  25. that is because you have biased blinders on. according to voluntaryists, an-caps, and a lot of libertarians, voting is force. the force of the majority upon the minority. does voting involve guns? not at all.

    if elected and successful in withdrawing from the us as a whole, force is being used against those who didn’t wish to withdraw. they didn’t vote to withdraw but they are being forced to by others.

  26. Holy jesus, did you see how defensive he just got? You really must have hit a nerve there. I wonder what that’s all about.

  27. No, I think you’re being a jerk. se where I carefully drew my lines. I’m not voting for politicians, thus, I’m not using force. You could argue it is those who vote to elect a politician for me who are using force. The next time you accuse someone of having “biased blinders on,” consider being considerate.

  28. He’s bent because I know who he is, and I’ve demonstrated it. There’s that, and his obsession with pedophilia has made it obvious that he’s a pedophile. The label he once thought was cute to tag on others comes far too close to home when redirected at him.

  29. makes sense, hopefully nobody loans him any more money to build a new front to prey on kids.

  30. I’m soooooo violent.

  31. Voluntary statism would be compatible in a libertarian society. That is if you wanted to live under a communist regime that’s your business, you just cant force others to.

  32. Majority rule always hurts the m i n o r i t i e s.
    Like two wolf and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.

  33. I think the viewpoint some people take (not me) is that by voting you are legitimizing the state by acknowledging that you support the outcome of the election you are participating in. So to say that Voting is force would be jumping past that idea. I think most people on here would agree voting isn’t force, however some people may perceive participating in a violent system that works on behalf of the voters as force. However that’s a minority of the libertarians and we’ve already established you don’t care about minorities.

  34. Well said Kenneth, I think he should take step back and take a look at the whole picture with a clear mind.

  35. If you claim to be part of the majority, then you are, by definition, claiming to be precisely whom the civil society needs to restrain.

    Spoken like a true oligarch.

  36. That’s voluntary government, not Statism. Chad is (for once) correct: Statism, by definition, is imposed upon the unwilling.

    Of course, it’s completely clear what you meant, so his complaint was pedantic.

    In a voluntary society, some group of consenting adults can decide to live in any manner they choose, including submitting to totalitarian control. So long as every participant is there of his/her own free will, that’s entirely acceptable.

  37. Using the “force of voting” in self-defense is acceptable.

    And if someone wishes to assist someone else in mugging me, then pardon me for not worrying too much that they won’t like it if I defend myself by voting against the violence they do to me.

    There’s nothing unacceptable about “using force” by voting; the question, as with any use of force, relates to whether one is /initiating/ force, or /defending/ against someone else’s initiation of force.

  38. Yet again, you lack any comprehension of English and/or logic.

    Oligarchy is rule by a few.

    Arguing against majority rule does not equate to arguing for rule by a few. A voluntary society is based upon individuals controlling their own lives. I rule 100% of those under my power, and those over whom I have that control consists of: me, and only me.

    Oligarchy would be one way that majority rule could not be the case. But there are dozens, hundreds, or thoudsands of alternatives that also do not rely upon majority rule. It’s illogical to claim that arguing against something automatically arguing in favor of one particular alternative. There’s even a fancy name for the fallacy you committed. Maybe you should share that with the class, eh? But logic has never been your strong suit, has it? So I’m guessing you don’t even know…

  39. Really? Which “peaceful citizens” are having force used against them? Some “most definitely nothing like peaceful citizens” might be able to claim that force is being used against them. But I can’t imagine that any peaceful individual is going to complain about someone who shows up and promises to leave them alone.

    Do you even think before posting this nonsense? No one associated with Free Keene, to the best of my knowledge, has argued that you should not be able to have whatever sort of government you want to rule over /you/. All they’ve said is that you should not be able to rule over /others/ who don’t consent. If you were a peaceful person, you would not /want/ to rule over others against their consent; those who believe in violating consent are, by definition, not peaceful.

    So, realistically, your argument fails on logic. It’s literally impossible for a peaceful person to be opposed to a voluntary society.

  40. this op is about voting and politicians. did i claim anywhere that you vote?
    as far as furthering the discussion, your childish name calling does less then anything i posted.

  41. hallie i have stepped back and thats why i can see the need for some kind of system with a society as large as ours. sorry a person may be good natured and kind hearted but people in a group are not.

  42. strawman argument aside from you hallie, i have met plenty of voluntaryists, an-caps and libs that believe voting in of itself is force so i am just echoing their viewpoints. however, no where did i say that included everyone. you should read more carefully.

  43. shark it all comes down to the situation. however the whole mugging argument has been over used and out played. the initiation of force is a perception issue

  44. Yet again, you lack any comprehension of English and/or logic.

    If MaineShark believes that I lack any comprehension of English, then the fact that he just addressed me in English proves that he lacks any comprehension of logic.

  45. “It’s literally impossible for a peaceful person to be opposed to a voluntary society.” ~ this is a fallacy. a voluntary society would be one that is forced upon others already in a organized society. let’s break this down for you, Group B (FSP, FK, others like them) come into an area, Group A (citizens of this area, example Keene, NH natives) already have a system in place for society ( government at various levels). now group B wants to do away with group A’s system for society and tells Group A they will bring in reinforcements to help them do so. 20,000 or so. how is this not force? if it was any other group that you don’t agree with or liked, i bet you would claim it’s group B using force.

  46. Ian should be jailed for talking such nonsense!

  47. Serious measures must be taken. “Free Staters” are terrorists and there’s only one way to deal with terrorists.

Care to comment?