I do not think that rights, negative or positive, are a particularly useful way of framing what the government should or should not treat as within its purview. ... But I think that framing issues in terms of rights is a bad way to sort out what are and aren't good policies to pursue

The fundamental political question is who does what to whom. Who gets to decide and enforce what on whom? Rights as prerogatives of choice and control that answer that question. How do you answer it?

In general, I think that the government should act according to a decision process of "what, within the ethical injunctions we're restricted by, are the most positive impacts we can make on society, according to our best understanding of the public's preferences should they have the information available to us?

Positive, according to whom? As decided by whom? I note that people I disagree with on politics like to say "We" and "Us" a lot, but in fact it's still individual whos doing to individual whoms, and they don't like to point out the individuals too often, and certainly don't like to point out the element of force in that relationship.

What are you ethical injunctions? They seem all important to evaluating your view of government, as without them, you're granting unlimited license to the government to make "positive impacts".

One clear difference I'm noting between US libertarian traditions and progressive viewpoints is the null hypothesis on government power, with libertarians holding that government should only do what it is specifically empowered to do, and progressives holding that government is empowered to do whatever isn't specifically prohibited. Progressives want the government to force people to do whatever is good for society, and libertarians want government to protect rights and provide conflict resolution, but otherwise leave people to spend their lives on their own view of what is good.