Jan Helfield's interviews do not expose a true philosophic "tug-of-war." They only expose the near-universal hypocrisy of our rulers. Jan "sets up" the interviewed politicians in by getting them to agree that people should not be robbed. Then he points out that government robs people all the time.
At that point the politicians realize that Jan is not one of the tame media ass-lickers they are accustomed to dealing with, and they react angrily -- not because they are discovering an internal contradiction in their thinking, but simply because they are scoundrels who see their criminality being exposed to public view.
The root cause of our problems is not the fact that politicians practice hypocrisy. The root cause of our problems is that all us "good" people understand that robbing people is morally wrong . . . but when government does it, oh that's different. That "but" is the problem. It's not different. It isn't our politicians who are confused here. It's all the good people who accept the superstitious notion that some men have a moral right to rule others.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
none of us can know what exactly goes on in their heads, but it certainly is possible that BOTH things are going on in their minds (realizing the contradictions, and/or just hating Jan for actually asking questions).
I think it's fair to say its a combination of these factors: realizing the tug of war in their minds, then becoming frustrated because Jan is persistent and is not licking their boots.
Take the Red Pill at www.redpillphilosophy.com New Videos, Articles, and More!