You can banter about these details all you want. Employment is still a contract, not a positive right.
...On what basis is any right recognized if not, in some sense, contractually?
The only thing that does or does not make something a right is our recognition between one another (or a ruling bodies recognition) of that thing to be a right.
Whether it's a right or not is agreed upon by the people, and if enough clamor that they have a right to housing, healthcare, free enterprise, free speech, or whatnot then that thing may become or be a right.
Employment can become a right provided enough people demand it be a right, something the government is obligated to ensure people posses in some capacity.
Even in the dystopian fantasy where the federal government employs all the jobless, there still must be terms associated with that employment, and the employee's decision to abide by those terms or not (and refuse the job).
With the following consequences that come from refusing a job, yes. Just as a person who refuses guaranteed healthcare will suffer on their part.
Not sure what that has to do with any of this, but whatever.
Though I gotta admit, I love how you term a society where the jobless can find some sort of relief from their situation a dystopia.
In no way can an employment arrangement be considered a positive right. Thus no one has a right to a job.
I'm not sure you put forth any sort of real logic to support that conclusion.
What you have above is "Well, seeing as employee - employer relationship is a contractual one, then government can't possibly have a mandate to provide for individuals unable to find work, cause if the employee was working for the government- terms and stuff."
What you have above doesn't fit together.
