And I'm not talking about "libertarian" anything. You were wanting to discuss "originalism" and trying to show how even it MUST accept some "living constitution" theory. But no, it really doesn't have to, and trying to shoehorn modern interpretations into it just shows that you don't really know all that much about originalism.
In short, you can't claim "originalism" must do something and then bolt when it's shown it doesn't have to, with some flutter about "every function of government unconstitutional," which is patent nonsense. Well, you can, but that's just lame.