That is not quite what I was asking. She would seem to be infavor of not outlawing it, but would she consider it moral or immoral? She went beyond simply social organizational structure to morality of individual acts.
So that is helpful, but does not really answer the question.
Okay, I get the gist of your question. First I am going to answer your question, then I am going to support it, and ref a short section of Rand's writings. I hope this method is not boring or trivializing the subject, because you have asked a very good question.
Is it moral or immoral to extort a large sum from an accident victim, and refuse to help unless he pays up? (qualification:
Personal morality issue. It should be clear to all that Rand would have opposed law, social forcings, on the issue).
Immoral. Grossly, obscenely immoral.
That is stated
irrespective of the following -
My duty as a capitalist and competitor ambulance driver is to drive him out of business, lest he sully the reputation of those in our trade and thus impinge on my prosperity in the trade.
Now, why do I say this according to Rand?
Realize the following. Rand did not say "be a MiniRand". She was not out to create babbling RandHeads, but people who could think, being essentially, a teacher. This is in large part why there is wrongness associated with Randness. A lot of people who followed Rand thought they should become little philosophers.
She said on the contrary, go do lots of really cool stuff, improve the world and prosper. So look at what I did in answering the above question. I answered it. It reflects what I think.
Reference (Again from VS)
9. The Cult of Moral Grayness
by Ayn Rand
One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bank*ruptcy of today’s culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: “There are no blacks and whites, there are only grays.” This is asserted in regard to persons, actions, principles of conduct, and morality in general. “Black and white,” in this context, means “good and evil.” (The reverse order used in that catch phrase is interesting psychologically.) In any respect one cares to examine, that notion is full of contradictions (foremost among them is the fallacy of “the stolen concept”). If there is no black and white, there can be no gray—since gray is merely a mixture of the two.
Before one can identify anything as “gray,” one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of moral*ity, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justifica*tion for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil. In morality, “black” is predominantly the result of at*tempting to pretend to oneself that one is merely “gray.”
If a moral code (such as altruism) is, in fact, impossible to practice, it is the code that must be condemned as “black,” not its victims evaluated as “gray.” If a moral code prescribes irreconcilable contradictions—so that by choosing the good in one respect, a man becomes evil in another—it is the code that must be rejected as “black.” If a moral code is inapplicable to reality—if it offers no guidance ex*cept a series of arbitrary, groundless, out-of-context injunctions and commandments, to be accepted on faith and practiced automatically, as blind dogma—its practitioners cannot properly be classified as “white” or “black” or “gray”: a moral code that forbids and paralyzes moral judg*ment is a contradiction in terms.
If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right, and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as “gray”; morally, he is “white.” Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience. But if, in order to escape the responsibility of moral judg*ment, a man closes his eyes and mind, if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, he cannot be re*garded as “gray”; morally, he is as “black” as they come.
_The Fountainhead_, as I remember it, was littered with emotional appeals, some of which made absolutely no sense. A line I may never forget declares collectivism is something like "slavery to slavery without the dignity of a master." Face it, Rand's writings are of the sort that make socially maladjusted teens hard. She produced stroke books. (Not that that matters any more than her alleged intelligence.)