Rand's books gave her more than sufficient income. She took social security because she paid for it.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years

"after her initial objections, she allowed social worker Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare"

I do not think it was wrong of her to take government handouts in her later years. What was wrong, is wrong, is how her acolytes continue in the modern day breaking down that same system for others.

Evil evil people. Confused and and sad old lady.

Rand's education was made possible by communists - both monetarily and also by fighting for the right of women to enter higher education. Always deliciously ironic to see.

This is an important point and should not be downvoted.

It's not possible to accurately argue "she would have received a better/more efficient education in a free market society" because that's a counterfactual.

In fact, it's probably more likely that she dedicated her whole life to overreacting against socialist economics in her writing precisely because she had been exposed to Stalinism/communism.

I'm having some difficulty understanding your statement:

>"It's not possible to accurately argue "she would have received a better/more efficient education in a free market society" because that's a counterfactual."

Do you mean to say that nobody can ever argue that a historical counterfactual might have been preferable? This would seem to be a rationalization of history, through a refusal to consider alternatives.

Perhaps I can rephrase: it's not possible to test the counterfactual, therefore to know the accuracy of the statement.

Obviously anyone can make any statement/argument, but without the ability to verify it, it doesn't carry much weight.