I'm a big fan of Rand and truly believe that pure altruism is a fundimentally unsustainable and fruitless endeavor (considering the definition is putting in more than you get out, that's kind of obvious).
Luckily, most of the things we as a society value as being a "good" thing to do are in fact really good things to do as an individual looking out for one's own self interest.
Have you or I benefited greatly from the work of Jobs & Woz, Gates, Einstein, Pasteur, etc? I'd say yes.
Would it stand to reason that we would benefit significantly from future contributions from similar people?
Well, if that is true, we should probably support social programs like good access to education and healthcare, so that those potential innovators have fewer obstacles in their path.
Does a society that revolves around mass production tend to innovate faster when the masses have stronger spending power? Makes sense - so perhaps fiscal policies that mitigate income inequality would be wise - from an innovation standpoint (completely ignoring the moral case).
Yes, there are dumb people out there who read Rand and overlooked (a) that she was reacting to having lived through the awful aftermath of the Russian revolution and (b) was writing fiction in dystopian universes (before she got a bit too cray cray and just started writing philosophy). You can read Orwell and not think there's actually talking animals. And a lot of the proclaimed Randians happen to forget that in her most nuanced work, Atlas Shrugged, the populist movement was the lesser villain to the larger villian of crony capitalism, lobbying, and government intervention on behalf of those interests.
It's actually quite refreshing to look at socialist policies from a perspective of selfishness, because if you ask yourself the question of "will these policies benefit me even if I'm not a direct beneficiary?" - the amazing thing is that the answer is"yes" given a long and broad perspective. We shouldn't as a society make the case for these policies because of moral arguments, but can and should make the case on the basis of their impact on economic growth and the rate of progress.
Most investors prefer reinvestment to dividends for long term holdings. And that's exactly what social programs, and policies addressing income inequality, are. They are a reinvestment into the country instead of a dividend (aka tax cut) paid out annually. Let's make that case using the language and reasoning they already understand.