Sharon and I warily but eagerly watched AMC’s re-working of the landmark mid-1960s television series entitled, “THE PRISONER.” We should have been more wary. Jim Caviezel, Ian McKellen and the rest of the cast – especially actor Lennie James, who did a marvelously affecting performance as “147,” the cab driver — deserve credit for a job well-done. Individual scenes within the six-part mini-series were quite nicely accomplished. The problem with this production was that whoever conceived its plot seems to have been philosophically more in tune with the administration of The Village than championing individualism. For that reason – the overall theme – this new version of “THE PRISONER” was horribly disappointing.
I generally ascribe to the idea that, if I can’t write or say something positive, I won’t say anything at all. But the message found in those original seventeen episodes of “THE PRISONER” is too important to let this new mini-series masquerade under its name. In the new mini-series, “6”ends up working for the betterment of human kind. Disillusioned by man’s shallowness, he comes around to the idea that he shouldn‘t just be thinking of himself, but should think of others. Yadda, yadda, yadda. The original Number Six would not let himself be broken and took pride in his stubbornly held individuality. Sure, he’d help people. He was a good guy. But, he wouldn’t presume to re-mold other lives because he didn’t have the right to do that, any more than his adversaries had the right to re-mold him.
Number Six fiercely proclaimed, “I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed or numbered!” While “6” has no philosophical baseline Sharon and I could discern. He’s a decent fellow and, eventually, comes around to the idea of being socially productive. He sells out without realizing it. Those who would decry individualism in the name of the greater good may deserve to live in the sort of society they wish to create. The rest of us don’t.
The battle for individual freedom has never been more important than it is right now. Never has the concept of individualism been more under attack. Sharon and I raised our children on the world view of Patrick McGoohan’s Number Six. McGoohan and George Markstein – co-creators of the original – composed a wonderfully entertaining, sometimes funny, always enlightening hymn to human freedom. This six episode re-envisioning played a much different tune.
McGOOHAN’S NUMBER SIX IS STILL NUMBER ONE
Previous post: TIME TO STAND UP FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY?
Next post: I SPILLED CATSUP ON MY HOMEWORK!
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
“… being socially productive. He sells out without realizing it. Those who would decry individualism in the name of the greater good may deserve to live in the sort of society they wish to create. The rest of us don’t.”
You seemed to consider a socially productive individual choice as a akin to selling out. Doesn’t the newer “Number 6″ have the right to make that choice? Or, does individualism only count when a person tells the rest of society to “take a flying leap. I’ll do what I want, with no illusions that I’m part of something larger than myself.” The rest of this quote sounds like libertarianism. It might SEEM like a nice idea, but no one would really want to live in such a society. Because, there would really be no society where more than a few like-minded people could coexist without chaos.
I loved “The Survivalist” series. But, we have to live in a workable society with people we don’t agree with. Individualism doesn’t allow for that. It’s just good theory; and a good foundation on which to build something real. But, it’s not the finished product.
Uvalde TX
Greg,
We read your exceedingly interesting comments. Thought provoking, indeed. Certainly, “6,” in the new mini-series, has every right to do whatever he chooses, lest that interfere with the exercise of someone else’s free will. This new Village — in that respect, like the old one — assumes a paternalistic right to know what’s good for us and see that we do it. That’s way too much like what’s going on in Washington today. No, I am not a Libertarian. Sharon and I try to be Objectivists. I do not want some other human being presuming to tell me right from wrong, trying to change me, etc. When I see a person collecting for a worthy cause, I’ll donate — but not out of a sense of social responsibility. I do it because I want to. My fair share is absolutely nothing, when it comes to giving and receiving. Thanks for a great comment, Greg. As they say, “Be seeing you!”
Jerry,
Thank YOU for the personal response.
Isn’t Objectivism just the personal philosophy on which libertarianism is based, though. It’s a very individualistic understanding of how society should be organized (and all societies, save anarchistic ones, are organized). But, I don’t see it practically working very well in a society in which you have millions of people with no moral center, other than, “If it feels good, do it”.
To some extent I’m an idealist. But, we have to stop and admit to ourselves that we don’t have the ethical make-up to our society on which to base unfettered liberty. If we abolished many laws we both consider narrow ‘nanny state’ laws, there would be a chaotic free-for-all. It would be like leaving a bowl of candy out on Halloween with a sign saying, “Take only one, please.” That candy lasts about 5 minutes when mom and dad aren’t supervising.
My idealism asserts itself in that I still believe that we, in the future, can still govern ourselves in morally informed liberty. But, it will require a return – by willing individuals – to a self-restrained, self-governed, moral lifestyle. Any citizenry which cannot govern it’s own appetites from within, must be governed from without. This is not my wish, it is simply the way things are.
“Be seeing you, too.”
Uvalde, TX
Greg,
You certainly write the thought-provoking comments!
Sharon and I view Objectivism as ego-centered. But, it’s not, “If it feels good, do it.” Rather, it’s enlightened self-interest. Just because some persons — even if the number proved to be the majority — are unable or unwilling to conduct their own affairs doesn’t mean Sharon and I should be restricted in any way, except by our own sense of morality. In other words, we neither want nor need restrictions to be placed upon our actions. If others feel that they want that, they have that right — so long as, in so doing, Sharon’s and my rights are not impinged upon or impacted in any way. THE PRISONER (McGoohan’s) is the one television series I don’t feel silly quoting. There’s a line in a film of around the same period, “OUR MAN FLINT.” The film is quite tongue-in-cheek, but there’s an underlying independent streak in the main character. After “Flint” has penetrated the island where the socially responsible scientists are headquartered, controlling the world’s weather in order to make all the nations on the globe scuttle their fleets and disband their armies, Flint delivers a wonderful line. As he is about to destroy the machine used to control the weather, the scientists plead with him, one saying, “Ours would be a perfect world, Mr. Flint!”
Flint tells them, “But not my idea of perfection.” Their price was too high. He destroys the machine. Sharon and I would have done the same. So would McGoohan’s Number Six.
Neither Sharon nor I want to be held socially responsible. We are because we want to be, choose to be and won’t let someone tell us we must be.
JERRY AHERN
Individual freedom is necessary, but there are too many times in recent modern history where the courts have rules that the right of the individual supersedes the right of the masses. As individuals we should have the right to pray or not pray at public or school events, but the court has ruled that because 1 person finds it objectionable because it conflicts with their beliefs, it is against the law. I find that amount of government interference objectionable. Another instance is smoking bans that cover entire cities and yes there are a couple here in Indiana that are trying to extend those bans to rivate homes, especially if there is a child in the house. Now I would hope that most people who know the health risks involved wouldn’t smoke around their children. However, the very idea that the government can say you can’t make the choice to smoke or not to in the privacy of your own home is a bad thing. I think the original number 6 would agree, as would I believe, John Gault. At any rate I am sorry that the new mini-series of The Prisoner did not live up to its potential. But if it started a debate like this on a much larger scale, maybe some good may come of it.
Bill
I never meant to imply that Objectivism espoused, “if it feels good, do it”. I’m sure there are plenty of Objectivists who have the ability to “do unto others as you would have them unto you”; who could manage to give of your time, talents, and treasure to those things which you CHOOSE to give to; and thus avoiding badly run public charities.
My issue is that we live in a societypopulated by a large majority of people who do not act like that; i.e. RATIONALLY! Thus, either the law will impose some arbitrary standards, or there will be no standards. But, you’re right in that, as it stands in our day, it is we who have a moral center who are made to pay for it – both metaphorically and literally. Our money and our liberty are taken, so as to try to maintain the semblance of an ordered social structure, which would naturally occur where there exists a morally informed, morally committed populace. As bad as things are, it’s the people who’ve got to change before the laws will.
Only by the grace of God, and the work of His people will this ever happen.
May God richly bless you and your family, Jerry.
Jerry,
I didn’t mean to slight your comments. So, let me address the most pertinent sentences, here. You wrote;
“Just because some persons — even if the number proved to be the majority — are unable or unwilling to conduct their own affairs doesn’t mean Sharon and I should be restricted in any way, except by our own sense of morality. In other words, we neither want nor need restrictions to be placed upon our actions. If others feel that they want that, they have that right — so long as, in so doing, Sharon’s and my rights are not impinged upon or impacted in any way.”
This is in fact the libertarian credo.
But, the very maintenance of a stable society (not meaning the socialism that things are turning into, today) should be a natural enhancement to individual liberty. That’s why the framers of the Constitution spent months haggling over every sentence of the document.
In order to have liberty, there must exist a level of society-wide morality that can support both a free and a stable society. People can exist in liberty when they will not use freedom as a license to indulge appetites that force the rest of society to pay the price (i.e. drug abuse, drunk driving). If freedom becomes license, then it ceases to be a natural right. It then becomes something that must be balanced against the good of all the individuals who make up society as a whole.
Perhaps, none of us should have to live in the society that we do. My wife and I sure don’t want to, in many ways. But, we live amongst the most ignorant, immoral generation of Americans that has ever lived (a gradual progression). So, I ask you, how could you expect the government to allow you and your wife – and thus, by extension, everyone in the country – to do whatever you want, whenever, and however you want? I trust you and Sharon. It’s too many of the others who would burn this country to the ground in their “freedom”, that bother me.
“You don’t trust the people to do what’s right!” I even hear this from conservatives. I answer; “You’re right. I don’t trust them.” People have become self-absorbed narcissists in our day. They sit in front of their TVs, or play video games, and pretend that life isn’t serious; that there aren’t major problems facing this country. They act like overgrown children who just want to be taken care of. If this growing group ever becomes the clear majority, and understands their stake in maintaining the status quo, then this country is sunk. I have hope that this will not continue. But, I don’t trust the narcissists to do what’s in the best interests of others, as it stands.
You can’t have what you want, Jerry. I can’t either. Not unless we all get involved, have a national awakening of morality (I would see it as religious in nature, since there’s never been any other kind), and turn the corner towards a society that CAN EXIST in individual liberty.
Otherwise, we’re all just wishing for something that will never happen. I believe that it can.
Uvalde, TX