or do you see no place for human rights at all ?
i think that we only need to protect human rights and social order will result automatically because any disturbance of the order will necessarily violate somebody's rights.
so for example we don't even need to write a law saying that all must drive on the right side of the street. you try driving on the left side - you run somebody over - and you find yourself on an electric chair. your brother will then think twice before driving on the left side of the street even though there isn't a single law regulating traffic.
you make the assumption that you know what means will lead to which ends. or at least you think you can figure it out by trial and error.
i say it doesn't need to be that complicated. instead of a guessing game let's make it a constraint satisfaction problem:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_satisfaction_problem]Constraint satisfaction problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
which is what the Fathers did with the bill of rights. they defined the ENDS rather than the means.
the ends being agreed on universally is sufficient for a framework for social order. the means can and should be decided on individual level because decisions are usually more efficient on that level than on state level.