[InsideOutSanta]

>She wanted to let the disabled starve or beg on street corners so she'd have a tiny fraction more wealth

>She opposed self-sacrifice but she wasn’t against charity. She supported it when it came from a genuine personal desire to help others (as opposed to a moral duty).

These do not seem like contradictory statements. They are just different ways of phrasing the same concept: There is no moral duty to help others, and if people can't get somebody to desire to help them, they deserve to die.

[olalonde]

Phrasing is important though.

"She wanted to let kids die from accidental drownings so she'd be able to have a pool."

vs

"She wanted pools to be legal."

[stevenAthompson]

When you say that those unable to work "have to rely on voluntary charity" it is functionally equivalent to saying that people should be left to starve when others don't have extra money (IE - During a recession). She was either a short-sighted simpleton who couldn't see that, or evil enough to see it and ignore it.

I suspect that it was the latter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4HqlqQYwo

[bigstrat2003]

You're engaging in a false dichotomy. The possibilities are not "Rand was a dum-dum" or "Rand was evil". There's also the (very likely) possibility that either she was wrong, or you are wrong (and yes, you could be wrong in your analysis even though I don't blame you for not thinking you are), through no fault of character. These sorts of big issues are hard to analyze and get right.

[KerrAvon]

You seem to be implying there’s some moral gray area on the issue of allowing disabled people to starve? Am I misreading what you’re saying?