Strictly speaking, you're "right" ... however, it belies an incredibly inhumane approach to life. Although I concede that reality doesn't always reflect intention, _my intention_ for government is to provide services and protections for all of us; every citizen.

While yes, that shouldn't mean one is necessarily entitled to anything, I want my tax funds going towards helping people who have unforeseen things happen to them. If they lose a job, or get sick, or their head-of-household/primary income passes away, or they are the victim of abuse ... I want my funds to help those people.

We're talking about a world where automation has consumed say 20%+ of jobs. You presumably don't want to let these newly unemployed people starve, so what's to be done? It's naive to think that continued rising mass unemployment while a small amount of robot owners get richer and richer is a stable model of society. The automated economy would end up in public hands soon enough, one way or another.

So you're saying that even though the government promised us that exalted "job creators" deserved tax cut to create jobs and increase wages; and even though those same corporations took those tax cuts and paid themselves and bought robots with it instead of meaningfully boosting wages (where is my $4k every worker was promised?); and even though most of that money stayed at the top; and even though we'll be paying off that money far into the future; and even though the government continues to erode worker's rights; and even though this system has created people who have more money than they could possibly spend in 10 million lifetimes while others are starving and homeless; you're telling me that despite all that, it's our own damn responsibility to find a job, and the government plays no role here in a future where the game was rigged the entire time so that capital owners could control everything?

>>" It's not the government's job to provide you a job"

Maybe now things are how you say, but it's not a divine mandate.

If you see the government as a tool of society, it's the society who should choose the role of the government through the democratic process.

The job of the state, ultimately, is to preserve itself. In practice, that means upholding a social contract in order to maintain order. If we see a widespread outbreak of technological unemployment then more effort on the part of government is necessary lest public order breaks down.

It's that simple. No moral arguments are necessary.

The state not only protect property rights, it defines them.

The problem is that when you have a recently minted, largely unemployed underclass who are not having their basic needs met, you frequently get rebellion. At that point the state's ability to enforce contracts, protect property, and dole out justice becomes severely hampered.

The best way to think of it, IMO, is the way Marx described the State which is a group built to protect the bourgeoisie.

It should (will? could?) eventually reach a point in which the State represents a social contract between all members of a civil society to work in the group's overall best interests.