The excuse that we do not live in a perfect world does not defend the wholly unreasonable position that pragmatism is allowable in the contemplation of rights, which by definition are not to be subjects of pragmatism. Well, that just shows the poor thinking and incomplete logic of natural rights. If the thinking was more cogent and the logic more complete there would be far less misunderstanding. All solutions in human interaction are compromises and perfection in this can, and is often reached by all parties being satisfied. It is only when one takes a position that does not allow compromise that perfection becomes unachievable. In such a case the only explanation is that one, or both parties are insane. Your position that the thinking of natural rights includes temporary compromise due to pragmatic considerations without actually accepting the reality that forces them does noting but take insanity to a whole other level.