Hayek doesn't fit in well with most Libertarians nowadays. From his "The Road to Serfdom":

    There is no reason why, in a society which has
    reached the general level of wealth ours has, the
    first kind of security should not be guaranteed to
    all without endangering general freedom; that is:
    some minimum of food, shelter and clothing,
    sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any
    reason why the state should not help to organize a
    comprehensive system of social insurance in
    providing for those common hazards of life against
    which few can make adequate provision.

and

    Where, as in the case of sickness and accident,
    neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the
    efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule
    weakened by the provision of assistance – where,
    in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks –
    the case for the state’s helping to organize a
    comprehensive system of social insurance is very
    strong. There are many points of detail where those
    wishing to preserve the competitive system and those
    wishing to super-cede it by something different will
    disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is
    possible under the name of social insurance to
    introduce measures which tend to make competition
    more or less ineffective. But there is no
    incompatability in principle between the state’s
    providing greater security in this way and the
    preservation of individual freedom.

    To the same category belongs also the increase of
    security through the state’s rendering assistance
    to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as
    earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can
    mitigate disasters against which the individual can
    neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision
    for the consequences, such communal action should
    undoubtedly be taken.

Post that in many Libertarian forums nowadays and you'll be called a leftist or statist.