[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Hayek was not as laissez-faire as many who came before him, his colleagues, or those who came after him. In terms of political philosophy, he was comparatively statist. I can also show you a number of anarchists who advocate using social security under current conditions, so I'm left to conclude that the point of the story is that the Koch brothers are bad actors. Which isn't really disputed by me, they're oligarchs above all else.[/QUOTE]
Hayek did advocate for a minimum state, especially in vol 2 of Law Legislation and Liberty. However it is important to not that this was not the social security net he was advocating and the fact that he got it showed how philosophically and personally hollow both Koch and Hayek were. For the most part he advocated the basic level only for those who could not under almost any circumstances support themselves (think mentally disabled, orphans and certain people with physical ailments like quadriplegia or loss of limbs that kept people from working and the really advanced elderly). If it was not under these circumstances than no one should take any social services at all.
Secondly make nooo mistake about why he wanted the minimum social safety net. He had an almost irrational fear of what he called the tribal nation, namely a nation of mobs where people get together to influence others. He saw these as things such as religions and charities as these tribal entities. So he advocated a minimum income to protect against deprivation which in his mind torn people to these tribal agencies. But is against straight up income redistribution because it is totalitarian or offering aid to certain groups, such as the Native Americans or any group that receives these aids due to class/race/clan/occupation, an act he deems as not meeting his necessary clause (which in all his books he never really defined). In effect he is not actually worried about helping people, but rather he sees these things as protections against people choosing to go to a tribal society because of the harsh realities of capitalism.
Make no mistake, he was a total capitalist and believed in the system completely. His stances on social safety nets had less to do with statism, which he actually identified as a tribal society, and more to do with his fear of a tribal slide to totalitarianism. However this does not apply to him as his actions showed. He wasn't a statist at all, he just realized that when capitalism and a minimum state screw the bottom class, the bottom class will come knocking on the door with pitchforks.
ed up, and that we should just, like, leave everyone the 
