That's an interesting interpretation, but I think Kant was a much more consistent humanist than Rand. Kant took moral value to be based on the individual's sovereignty as an end rather than a means, and as a self-legislator who aims to be thoroughly consistent in her behaviour. The point about ends and means entails what Isaiah Berlin called positive rather than just negative liberties, and thus also something like a welfare state, contrary to libertarianism. That is, if all individuals are sacred, roughly speaking, we shouldn't be demonizing those who choose to be "altruistic."

Is Rand's implicit logic that someone must be productive, so we need to be consistent in recognizing that "law" and in applying our more particular maxims? It's intriguing, but the bulk of her reasoning seems to me more Aristotelian. It's a matter of conforming to human nature, not to rational or to transcendental formalities.

In any case, a Kantian Rand still wouldn't have much logic on her side since in a capitalist economy there are no successful producers without many unproductive losers. A Kantian would care more about intentions than consequences, but intentions are pretty cheap. Lots of folks might want to succeed, but they lack the killer instinct, they don't know how to win, or luck's not on their side. So what would be the point in encouraging everyone to be as productive as robber barons when that could never happen?

It's like Catholics telling Christians they should be more like Jesus, even as they acknowledge that everyone suffers from original sin, so that that imitation of God could only be miraculous.