I would disagree with your whole premise that a culture/society/nation doesn't have the right, in fact duty, to establish minimum standards of behavior for its members. Not only that, but a mechanism to enforce those standards. We could call it -- laws, maybe...Even back in the 1950s when I was in high school there was some of it; I ran into a Civic teacher who asked as a homework question whether people have to do what society tells them to. I, naively, reasoned that since we have freedom the answer was "No." The teacher asserted in class the next day that that was wrong and that "society" meant government.
The objection is not to laws, but to the concept that everything which is not mandated by those laws is forbidden by them. And the import of equating "society" with government is precisely that. Why else do you think that socialists equate those two different things? They rhetorically hide behind the word "society" - or, sometimes, "the public sector" - when government is precisely what they mean.
I think we're probably on two different pages. You would agree then that a culture/society/nation has a right, or more accurately, a duty to first identify, codify and ultimately enforce the qualities they feel will maintain or even improve the chances of survival of the group?
I can't argue the point that control freaks, our would-be masters, won't use every means at their disposal to increase their control. Including speaking on behalf of society/government. The term I find most grating, particularly from our domestic socialist enemies is when they presume to speak for Americans. We've all heard it hundreds of times, "Americans want_____________________(fill in government program), or Americans don't want_____________________(fill in the blank again with any private initiative) in their effort to legitimize their claims. Of course their partners in the MSM are masters at legitimizing the false premise. They've had lots of practice; it's their stock in trade.
Bottom line, I doubt we really have a quibble at all...