Galt was willing to take care o Dagny and began to do so. However, Dagney decided to pay her own way.

Barbara Branden was once asked basically the same question. "Who will help the poor and disabled in an Objectivist society". Barbara's response: "if you want to help them, no one will stop you."

I would help someone who was trying but just couldnt make it. I wont help the bums who just expect others to take care of them. I resent being forced to help people the government deems to be 'entitled' to help.
There are so many "entitled" people with their hands out these days, I dont give to anyone anymore. Its too hard to figure out if they are wanting help to get back on their feet, or just wanting a free ride.

Charity is when you open your wallet and freely give to others.
Welfare is when the gov't reaches into your wallet and freely gives to others.
If you reached into another persons wallet it would be called theft.
Ergo, welfare is theft.

Of course! Furthermore, it allows those who receive charity, to know that their care was not extorted from unwilling taxpayers, but was freely given by people who genuinely want to help them [or more generally, people in their situation].

If you want to, go ahead and care for as many as you would like and are able to. I've got a couple of ex-wives that would probably love to meet you.

With Objectivism you're allowed to care for whomever you want but you aren't forced to.

Same with charity. You're free to donate to whatever cause you find valuable but you shouldn't be extorted to do so (ex. Being taxed to pay for other people's health insurance).

(1) You are perfectly free to do so, if you desire.

(2) What do you mean by "support" themselves? Stephen Hawking only follows in the tradition of Karl "Proteus" Steinmetz, a hunchback dwarf.

(3) We know now that with attention and care, even Downies can hold jobs. People invested themselves in discovering that. Their motives were their own. Common culture calls it "altruism" but that is too shallow an answer.

(4) What rational motivation could induce a person to care for orchids or a cat? Why feed and walk a dog... twice a day... for 20 years...? The answer is quite simple in Objectivist psychology: self-reflection.

Not every self-reflection is a selfish one, however. Mother Theresa was validated by the suffering of others. Her nunnery was given (and is still given) millions of dollars. They do nothing with it. She did nothing to alleviate the suffering of those who came to her. That is quite a bit different than the service you get when you pay for your last days in an American hospice. The people there take care of those who cannot take care of themselves - and they make good money doing it. It is obviously rewarding to them on several levels.

It is not what you do, but why you do it.

To my understanding (from only reading two fiction books), it does not only allow for caring for people with disabilities, but it asserts you have an absolute natural right to care for them or not care for them.