Is the Ayn Rand "Every man for himself" society what we want for tomorrow's America?

Many of us were stunned when Gene Cranick’s home burned to the ground while firefighters stood and watched. It seems he lived in Obion County, Tennessee outside the city limits of South Fulton. County residents must pay a $75 annual fee to get fire protection outside city limits, and Mr. Cranick had forgotten to pay. The oversight cost him his home and all that it contained, including his two dogs and a cat. He and his next door neighbor alike offered to pay firefighters whatever it cosr to fight the fire, but the Fire Chief refused, saying it was too late.

New conservative personalities like Glenn Beck have been cheering the situation, saying that guys like Mr. Cranick are just sponges, have-nots trying to get a free ride on the backs of the haves like Beck. Like Ayn Rand’s John Gualt, they yearn for an America where its every man for himself. House on fire and you didn’t, or couldn’t pay? Too bad. Get hit by a car and your D&B rating isn’t high enough to pay for the emergency room—too bad—just die and quit using up wealth that could be transferred to the rich if not for all the lazy sponges out there.

Here are a few of the “every man for himself” initiatives Tea Party Republicans have put forward this year. Repealing unemployment insurance. Privatizing medicare and social security. Killing the GI bill. Privatizing the Veteran’s Administration. Repealing Healthcare reform and going back to letting insurers exclude preexisting conditions, cancel policies when people get sick, and set a lifetime cap on benefits. Fighting for tax breaks for big corporations that offshore our jobs. Fighting for a flat tax so we can no longer afford to help anyone who falls on hard times. These are all Teapublican values.

Is that the sort of society we want—a King of the mountain culture where only the strongest survive? Is America better when we’re all in it together, or only in it for ourselves?