That is the problem with your theory on rights as abstracts; it has no practical matter.
I do not see Rights as abstracts.
Rights are real, and can be demonstrated. Rights can be applied, and Rights are practical; we based our system of laws upon them, and every other nation bases their laws upon them, too.
I appreciate that you are trying to argue libertarianism as a praexology which is the Rightwing libertarian point of view, however, your reliance on a rights system or at least that you see value in debating abstract rights is often the cause of so many anti-libertarian critiques.
The only people who've ever argued with me about Rights, before you, were socialists. Your position that there are no such thing as Rights makes me think you may be, too. You say that government, "society," has sovereignty over any individual's actions. That view I define as socialism.
I think socialists are wrong, of course.
Rights are not "abstract," but socialist theory is. They have to train people to accept "State" ownership over "that's mine" individual ownership. Even a mother who tells the kids "everything is ours together, we're a family" will tell her kids "get your dirty hands off of my clothes, " and that's not just a convenient way of expressing herself; in her mind, that is her dress, and nobody will take it from her.
Where as theories on government and the protection of cultural tradition or rights has merit, would it not seem reasonable to state that a practical definition of rights are those liberties that the current culture tolerates at that moment and geographical location in time?
No. What society tolerates has no bearing on Rights at all, except that Rights might be infringed by that society.
No society can be free where Rights are not acknowledged and protected.