I'd agree that philosophy can become too abstract. Using examples from the real world helps clarify an abstract idea.

But I don't see why discussions can't proceed at different levels of analysis. You seem close to questioning the validity of philosophy itself, as an autonomous discourse.

Do you really think your distinction between liberal and conservative attitudes towards property rights affects the logic of the sociological and philosophical points I make in the article? Your distinction is an interesting one and delving into it might have made the article more empirical and political, but I think it's too strong to say that philosophers "need" to discuss real-world impacts. Is an abstract argument or explanation worthless if it's not attached to an explicit empirical discussion of the real-world context?