"Many people hold the highest moral good to be the elimination of suffering. They believe that we should work to improve the material conditions of the world's least-well-off humans. Ayn believes these people are evil. "
I don't have a quote to disprove you, but I'm fairly certain you are incorrect. Ayn's problem was moreso with any moral code that obliges you to help those in need, and with any financial or political system that forces you, at the point of a gun, to do so. If you want to make it your life's work to help the underprivileged, good on you, and I would be glad to help with an extra I may have, but forcing me to do it is another story. This is a common misinterpretation of her philosophy, but she writes so harshly that it isn't surprising, to me.
You will find, in real life situations, where freedom and personal property rights are protected, that almost everyone within that society has a higher standard of living than in countries that do not protect these rights. Most humans are compassionate and generous to the less well off. But if you restrict freedoms, and force compassion, I think its fair to say that you can see the real world consequences of that.
If her philosophy was to never help anyone under any circumstances without them earning it (which I don't think it was, this is often I think unjustly presumed by people), then I would disagree with her, and history shows that in free, affluent countries, most people do.
I am fully aware of the nuance in Randian/libertarian thought regarding the difference between compelled and voluntary action. In an essay, I believe in "The Virtue of Selfishness", Ayn mocks the "maximin" principle (maximizing the welfare of the least well-off) and somewhat cheekily advocates the "maximax" principle (maximizing the welfare of the most well-off). So, no, I don't think she supports living a life of charity, even if it is voluntary.
I am also aware that societies which protect property rights and refrain from excessive public welfare programs have higher economic growth rates than others. In the long run, economic growth surely benefits the least well-off as well as the most well-off.
However, many people's moral feelings lead them to choose a society with lower economic growth if it would benefit the least well-off in the short term. I can't think of any reason a priori to say that their feelings are wrong.
You will find, in real life situations, where freedom and personal property rights are protected, that almost everyone within that society has a higher standard of living than in countries that do not protect these rights. Most humans are compassionate and generous to the less well off. But if you restrict freedoms, and force compassion, I think its fair to say that you can see the real world consequences of that.
If her philosophy was to never help anyone under any circumstances without them earning it (which I don't think it was, this is often I think unjustly presumed by people), then I would disagree with her, and history shows that in free, affluent countries, most people do.