The trouble with unassailable bills of rights is that lawyers and legislators and jurists are all willing to assail them anyway.
We need cooperation, but governments as we know them are not, never were, and never can be principally or even tangentially for that propose as far as I know.
Many people complained the Charter of Rights we have in Canada did not stop the tyranny of the last few years; and that is true, but it absolutely slowed it down, until some form of sense and courage returned.
What kind of system do you propose?
Polycentrism. I can't pretend I know how to run your life. It's patently obvious a trritorial monopoly hasn't worked out in spite of its present pretended connection with the people through democracy. We need communities, but society is always in reality a potpourri of blended elements. It cannot be homogeneous.
500 years ago, it was just taken for granted that there could only be one church in a territory. People literally killed and died over this. Now we see there is no problem with Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Orthodox, and Lutheran churches (often one sharing a building with Seventh Day Adventists) plus Shiite or Sunni mosques, Mormon temples, Jewish synagogues, and assorted non-Abrahamic faiths sharing a community.
Now we are facing the same hurdle with civil religion, as some scholars and analysts call the trappings of nationalism, patriotism, and political ceremony. We have grown up with the idea of the nation-state, but it is historically speaking still a novel idea, dating back only to the Renaissance era as it slowly supplanted feudalism, first with the modern empires like Britain, and then with the emergence of modern republics.
I'm not proposing a return to feudalism or ancient city-states, but rather the idea that society does not need a professional political class at all. Those few services monopolized by governments can be better provided when people are free to choose. They don't need to be funded by extortion or claim a territorial monopoly. The fundamental crimes against life, liberty, and property would still be crimes, only there would not be a political class claiming a magical exception to those rules. I can't tell you exactly how it will work any more than I can tell you how many hardware stores, churches, or restaurants should be in your tow. All I can say is that when people are free to choose, and bear the responsibility for the consequences of their choices, that is when we see the most innovation and progress.
I think we agree overall ... less government.
Once we get it pared down to your goal, we'll discuss the rest :D
Well ... don't hold your breath. LOL