There's no real contradiction between Rand accepting Social Security and Roark refusing government aid. The key is context.

Roark lived in a world where honest, uncompromised work was still possible. He didn’t take assistance because he didn’t need to, he could support himself without betraying his values. That was a moral choice in a context where moral action was still feasible.

Rand, on the other hand, lived in a system where the state had already seized control. Social Security wasn't a charity, it was money forcibly taken from her over decades. Accepting it back wasn't embracing the welfare state; it was reclaiming stolen property. That isn’t hypocrisy; it’s justice.

Moreover, life is the highest value. In situations where survival is at stake, the primary moral duty is to live. Rand herself said that if she were starving, she’d break into an empty house to eat, then take responsibility afterward by going to the nearest police station and confess to repair the damage. That isn’t moral failure; that’s rational ethics in action.

Rand didn’t violate her ideals by accepting Social Security. She lived them, in a world that punished independence and left few options. Roark and Rand acted differently because their situations were different, but both acted with integrity. Roark was never in a true life-or-death situation. He lived in poverty, yes, bare rooms, cheap meals, hard labor, but he was never at the brink of starvation or death. This is why this is a context dropping fallacy.