[roenxi]

I don't recall the details of Ayn's moral arguments because they aren't of great interest to me, but there just isn't a fundamental inconsistency between campaigning against welfare and accepting welfare. There isn't any hypocrisy in pointing out that something creates horrible incentives, then doing what the incentives suggest. If anything it is a great show of consistency in belief.

The alternative position would be kinda crazy. It'd be pretty close to "The government has injured me and therefore I will make myself even worse off for no reason or gain to anyone!"

[llomax]

You have literally, repeatedly demonstrated you don’t understand what principles or integrity mean. Your “crazy” position is literally it. You are simply greedy: well if everyone else is doing it so should I. That is panic mode caused by a real trauma from scarcity. Or naivety. Or cringe apathy. Or mild sociopathy.

[roenxi]

> You are simply greedy: well if everyone else is doing it so should I.

But that isn't hypocrisy. Ayn's philosophical position was comfortable with the idea that everyone is greedy and her moral arguments were rooted in the observation that people will generally do what they can. It isn't reasonable to call someone a hypocrite or lacking integrity if they lay out a high-integrity moral position then stick to it. It isn't even a fallacy as much as an argument-from-not-listening-to-what-she-said.

This isn't complicated. If you pay $100 in taxes to the government then draw $80 in cheques from the government it'd be a rare anti-tax argument that has a moral problem with the $80 part. Most would argue the number should be $100 and might make an argument that the $20 disappeared in beurecratic overheads.