Soooo...by extension they have "no right" to set limits of any kind for the good of society?
Hmmm...
Government has no "rights" at all. It has "powers."
The only federal powers that are legitimate are those specified in the Constitution--as written, not as summarized by some textbook editor. For many decades we've been allowing the federal government to do things they convinced us are necessary "for the good of society," and look where it's gotten us.
Take 2A as an example: Government has decided that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" unless legislators or bureaucrats think it needs to be infringed "for the good of society." Now we have NFA, various state bans, and the like. Are these the limits to which you refer?
Simply put, government can't legally do something outside its enumerated powers, not even "for the good of society." If Federal government wants to do something it is not legitimately empowered to do--in other words, that power is not enumerated in the Constitution--and society overwhelmingly agrees, then it should be easy to amend the Constitution to allow for it to be done. That's why the amendment process is there.
So when the federal government strikes off into new powers territory because it's "for the good of society" or because most people support the idea of government having this new power, but at the same time neither government nor this supposed overwhelming majority of the people is seeking to amend the Constitution, you can bet that 1) said new power is unconstitutional, 2) they know they don't have the votes to get an amendment passed and ratified, and 3) they want to get it done really quickly before we all realize what it will actually do to us.
In short, government power is strictly limited, on purpose.
(Some might feel compelled to cite the "general welfare" or "commerce" clauses do refute this. Those clauses were not meant to grant broad power over and above the enumerated limits--if they were, why would the rest of the Constitution even need to exist?)