Thank you for highlighting the incompatibility of libertarian doctrine with the COTUS and classical liberalism in general.
I do not believe that government or a piece of paper can be a source of rights, or can legitimately deny them to anyone. I believe rights are inherent. The Constitution is not the end-all -- like Lysander Spooner said, it has either authorized such government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. However, I wouldn't say that the Constitution is "incompatible" with liberty -- it leaves the states unrestrained from perpetrating many violations of liberty, but it does not require them to perpetrate them, either. Under the Constitution, a state would be free to limit its government to legitimate roles.
I am not a big detractor of the Constitution. I think that if our government were to start following it, it would be a wonderful step in the right direction, as it would require the cessation of many of at least the national government's activities -- but like I said, it would not be the end-all.
You think I'm justifying the initiation of force?
You are if you advocate any level of government doing anything other than protecting the maximal correlative liberty of its citizens.
In the context of this topic, I was referring to the government forcing people to make their yards pretty, forcing people to obtain their permission to build or add onto their house, forcibly preventing people from building certain categories of structures or undertaking certain categories of free association on their property, etc.