There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.
That's your opinion, mine is that we have natural rights.
Go tell that to a bear. I'm sure he'll understand your natural rights. The reality of life is, you have no rights that are not protected and assured to you by society, and your rights are tied to the society you live. Go to Saudi Arabia, and try and claim your right to free speech.
It's also not just my opinion, it's a fully loaded argument I am giving. There's a difference between the two, even though they obviously overlap.
Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.
If this was a method of granting the government powers, then why was the tenth ammendment added?
Why did the tenth amendment not get rid of the necessary and proper clause, and the other stated powers? Why, under thsi scenario, did the founders, and Madison himself, come to agree that a National Bank was constitutional because it was necessary and proper? I'm not sure about you, but I've read the notes on the debate, and they were quite aware of this limited their foresight was, and that they didn't want to basically doom their country because they couldn't foresee every possibility.
The 10th amendment also gives the States any powers
not granted in the Constitution - this, however, is very specifically a power granted to the Federal Government.
Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.
No, the federal government was created to regulate commerce between (not within) states and provide national deffence. And these are necessary roles for it.
Yes, but the Federal Government we have came about because there was too little cohesion, too much anarchy.
There's also the preamble, which quite clearly tells us why the Federal Government was set up:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Again, the promotion of the general Welfare is mentioned, as well as some other things you're ignoring.
The Founders did quite a few things that today's Libertarians whitewash over.