Libertarianism and a social safety net

[Khern]

I posed this question in the modern communism argument thread and recieved no replies. I believe it is interesting enough for it's own thread.

A quote from one of the top libertarian figures of recent times about providing a degree of social security/support:

"These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenence for all; and second, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person of group enjoys compared with others.
...
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which our has obtained the first kind of security should not be garunteed to all without endangering general freedom."
F.A.Hayek, The Road to Surfdom, Ch 9.

For discussion:

1) What are basic needs? Make an economic argument for providing basic needs (including what they consist of), or an argument for this being unfeasible.

2) Give a reasonable means of funding that is not subject to vote buying.

3) Compare and contrast levels of social support found today with what is neccesary. I tend to think levels of medical care might be particularly interesting.

4) What do you do about bored people being given a sustenance living, and then having kids?

5) And finally, does this create a de facto minimum wage and is this reasonable?

Note that some of Hayek's view are said to have changed as he aged. I have no idea if he felt this way later in life.