If Ian lived in the manner of his ideals, he'd be in jail right now.
He's showed up to court, and adhered to the requirements of probation.
Otherwise, he'd be a wanted fugitive, and would be repeatedly arrested in larger and more serious offenses, culminating in indefinite incarceration.
This is why I don't subscribe to the principles of absolute autonomy and absolute rejection of authority. It is an upward slope.
When the judge says "You'll have a one-year sentence, serve ninety days, and the other 270 suspended on probation," you then report to a probation officer, are required to pay a supervision fee monthly, and probably submit to urinalysis as a requirement of probation. Refusal or failure remands you to serve the suspended term.
Since he is not serving the suspended term, I can assume he has paid the monthly fee, shown up for probation appointments, and urinated on command - clean of intoxicants. He is also probably forbidden to leave the state without permission, have firearms in his residence, and submit to spot-checks whenever his PO shows up at his residence. He must also report a change of address to his PO within 72 hours if he changes legal residence.
None of this is voluntary. It is mandatory. And mandatory is the exact opposite of "living free".