Except she isn't stealing the state in any way, the state is more than willing to give her back.
If she's stealing someone, it's someone akin to her younger self whose work is taken away by the state to give her.
Had she become a burglar, stealing directly from the senior public servants[1] houses, then it would have been somehow consistent. But I'm pretty sure she would still have agreed that this was theft and immoral.
The reality is simple, at the end of her life, she simply couldn't afford to live in a way that matched her individualist ideology.
[1]: because even though Rand claims she hates the State, it's pretty clear from the writing that her main personal issues are the civil servants themselves.
I never claimed she was stealing the state, I claimed that she was stealing from the state.
> If she's stealing someone, it's someone akin to her younger self whose work is taken away by the state to give her.
I didn’t claim she was stealing anyone.
The state took her money, and she reclaimed some of it. This is perfectly consistent with her moral philosophy and doesn’t constitute hypocrisy in any way.
> I never claimed she was stealing the state, I claimed that she was stealing from the state.
Not a native speaker, what's the difference between those two?
> I didn’t claim she was stealing anyone.
Wait you did, right above “I claimed that she was stealing from the state”.
> The state took her money, and she reclaimed some of it.
No, in reality the state redistributed her money, then the state handed other people's money to her.
> This is perfectly consistent with her moral philosophy and doesn’t constitute hypocrisy in any way.
You keep saying that but you've failed to make a convincing argument.
How would accepting stolen money handed over by your nemesis be consistent with anything?
If we consider the state stole her money earlier, then the state is again stealing someone's money by the time it gives it to her. If taxes are theft, then late Ayn Rand was in “Possession of property obtained by crime”, which isn't morally more defensible than the theft itself.
If you steal from some people make up for the loss that some other people inflicted on you, you're still a thieve no matter the moral framework.
> I think my comment explains this pretty clearly, I’d recommend reading it more carefully and in good faith before responding.
There's no bad faith on my side, your argument just ain't valid.