This argument doesn't hold water for me. Society makes it possible for everyone to earn a living, so people who aren't doing it should start.
But they won't. It's safe to say that lazy people are good at being lazy and will find a way to be lazy no matter what system they're in.
Pretending we can build a system that eradicates laziness in an exercise in futility. It's better to accept the fact that a fixed percentage of people are only going to take while most others give (and take), and stop wasting the enormous overhead trying to figure out which is which.
Not at all. You know what eradicates laziness? Hunger.
Do you have evidence of the size and nature of job vacancies compared to the skills and number of the unemployed?
While I can't speak for OP:
Without a society there'd be no education system, no legal tender, no laws protecting employees, no laws protecting companies, no infrastructure supporting it - and so on. So society makes it possible for people to have jobs. There's an old saying that it takes a village to raise a child, which tends to indicate that the group has had a lot of input to the success of the individual for a long time.
I can't even imagine how something as complex as the prerequisites for programming would work without a society. State of nature economies. I suppose you could have small family groups at some point on the hunter-gatherer to farming spectrum, but the minute those families come together into groups and start to develop more complex interactions... that looks mightily like a society to me.
But it doesn't follow from that that society makes it possible for everyone to have a job. Just that those who do could not without one.
It's very close to being the same underlying logical form that goes:
'All cats are four-legged mammals. Buts not all four-legged animals are cats.'
All employees are enabled by a society. But not all people in a society are so enabled.