OhReally

My Dad used to sum up the dealings my siblings, me and friends had with each other by saying, "Anything shiny, anything sweet".  By around the same age as the 5-year old you cite, my siblings and I would trade things with each other and our friends.  If we couldn't find a way to make the trade directly, we scrambled for something that would be acceptable.  We hadn't conceptualized the double coincidence of wants to any greater depth but we solved it on the spot by saying, "Well if you don't want this, then how about this over here."  With that, we discovered the value of bubble gum, Life Saver Mints, particular types of sea shells and beads that were yet to be threaded into necklaces.  
 
We used all these as money.  For example, I bought a test tube from my oldest Brother with three pieces of Bazooka Bubble Gum.  I knew that he didn't want the test tube any longer.  So instead of five pieces that he asked for, he settled on three.  My Sisters and her friends loved making beaded necklaces.  One of them bought a doll from a friend with a handful of red and green beads.  All of us really enjoyed making houses and forts from Popsicle sticks and glue.  When a friend showed up with a small bag of the sticks, we were all eager to trade with him.  He bought a whole bunch of things from us that day using his sticks as money, which was perfectly acceptable to us.  And to our young minds, he had a remarkably new idea.
 
I can remember hanging out in our tree fort with friends.  One of them asked out loud something to the effect, "We use bubble gum to buy things.  But what did kids use before bubble gum was made?"  My younger Brother piped up, "They used dimes made of silver.  My Dad still has a whole bunch of them."   And I said, "But they don't use those anymore though.  My Dad collects them and puts them into books." 
 
I know that I haven't gone back into history to answer your question in terms a 5-year old could understand.  My thoughts on history back then came from picture books, stories we were told and shows on TV.  They were all very cool.  But what was cooler at the time was anything shiny or anything sweet.

From Counting Crows to Talking Crows – an interesting advance in their "Bostonian" Crow Epistemology   Researchers for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority found over 200 dead crows near greater Boston recently, and there was concern that they may have died from avian flu.  A bird pathologist examined the remains of all the crows, and, to everyone's relief, confirmed the problem was definitely not avian flu.   The cause of death appeared to be vehicular impacts.   However, during the detailed analysis it was noted that varying colors of paints appeared on the bird's beaks and claws.  By analyzing these paint residues it was determined that 98% of the crows had been killed by impact with trucks, while only 2% were killed by an impact with a car.   MTA then hired an ornithological behaviorist to determine if there was a cause for the disproportionate percentages of truck kills versus car kills.   The ornithological behaviorist very quickly concluded the cause:  When crows eat road kill, they always have a lookout crow in a nearby tree to warn of impending danger.    They discovered that while all the lookout crows could shout "Cah", not a single one could shout "Truck."

Let me guess: he was a Rand fan? I'm more likely to get worked up over Augustine, Hegel, or Marx. At least Kant's politics were good.
Here's a quote you'll like, from just a few decades after Kant's death:

“What a strange contrast did this man's outward life present to his destructive, world-annihilating thoughts! In sooth, had the citizens of Königsberg had the least presentiment of the full significance of his ideas, they would have felt far more awful dread at the presence of this man than at the sight of an executioner, who can but kill the body. But the worthy folk saw in him nothing more than a Professor of Philosophy, and as he passed at his customary hour, they greeted him in a friendly manner and set their watches by him.”

Heinrich Heine

The government's role is to act as a body guard; and one whose services may be declined. Remembering that government is force, and that the only justifiable use of force is self-defense, about the only appropriate use of government force in a natural disaster, is to apprehend and prosecute looters. Ideally, the Coast Guard and National Guard should provide security and logistical support for private and volunteer emergency responders to deliver aid and medical attention to victims of a natural disaster.

I see a pattern to the last three questions you've asked. Essentially, they start with a term: "rationality" in the previous two, "knowledge" in this. And, you ask a question about that term. My suggestion is that you should first clarify your key term by expanding on it, and then drop the term itself. Having done this, ask your question of yourself, using the expansion.
Take "knowledge". Since you are asking about knowledge, you must know what it means, so expand on it. At this stage, do not ask what it ought to mean, but what facts of reality it currently refers to in your own mind. For instance, suppose you come up something rough like this: "some familiarity with reality, gained either from experience or from some innate faculty (it does not matter which), that allows the consciousness to predict, with better than random probability of success, some principles of causality (e.g. "this will fall if I tug on it") even if the consciousness does not recognize the notion of "principle" or "knowledge" or "causality". Now, you can ask yourself: does a squirrel have that ability so described, and you will have your answer.

Or, alternatively, you might think the term "knowledge" refers to (roughly): "the ability to form concepts and frame principles about reality". In which case you may come up with a different answer. The difference stems from the term "knowledge" being used to label very different sets of referents. Though the same word is used, the concept meant could be completely different.

The same with "rationality". If by "rationality" you mean a certain type process, then a scientist following the right process, after having made a mistake, and thus barking up the wrong tree is still following the right process (aka being rational, by your own use of the term) [we'll assume that the mistake itself was not based on a faulty process]. On the other hand, if by "rationality" you mean following a process that will lead to the right answer, even if it is only by luck in this particular instance, but will not lead to the right answer most of the time (i.e. in principle), then you can answer your question differently.

So, I suggest you clarify your terms the next time you post a one-liner question.

This question (a good question at that) reminds me of the often political questions some new members ask. "If the world turned Objectivist tomorrow, wouldn't old people starve and children have no schools?" The world is not turning Objectivist tomorrow. Gradual change would be needed in the political arena. The same sort of change would have to occur in this question.

The intellectuals of a culture shape and direct its philosophy. In this way, those would have to be the first people to change. The effect would trickle down affecting every aspect of even a relatively unintelligent person's view of life. If this person grew up in an Objectivist oriented society they would have a very good chance of following the logic involved. After all, they would have been taught from an early age that their mind is important and how to use it. Some basic ethics could be understood by even a simpleton.

Out here in the current, real world, I have my doubts for their success. It is certainly possible, (we do have free will and all) but when one is surrounded with intrinsicism and subjectivism from most every angle since birth, it would take some serious force of will to come out of it. Building up knowledge from such a shaky foundation is tough. The best chance would likely come from Objectivist parents who sought out an atmosphere conducive to rationality for their child. I'm curious if there are any case studies of a sort that would test this?

It sounds like the answer lies in your explanation.

The "responsibility to others" is instrumental in achieving your own happiness. By recognizing that aiding someone to be a mooch or thief is not in your interest, you are establishing the criteria by which you choose individuals or groups to be philanthropic toward.