I think that actually makes total sense in the context of her philosophy. Her objection to welfare comes from the "non-aggression principle," e.g. that she felt

I think that actually makes total sense in the context of her philosophy. Her objection to welfare comes from the "non-aggression principle," e.g. that she felt it was immoral to use any type of force, violence, or aggression to make other people participate in something they don't agree with. To her, any type of taxes backed by legal penalties was "aggression." In her view, it would actually be helping right the wrong to accept welfare, especially if you had ever had to pay taxes in the past against your will. To be clear, I am not trying to argue for, or convince you of her position, but to argue that I believe she faithfully lived by the principles she espoused. In fact, I think much of the problems in her personal life make a pretty strong argument against her philosophy.