Minority Rights without Minority Veto
Debates about the filibuster are almost always framed as a choice between two parliamentary models: the modern majoritarian House and the modern 60-vote Senate. But that skips other models of legislative structure, including the one you'll find in church basements and HOA meetings throughout the country: Robert’s Rules of Order.
It's worth taking a comparative walk through how each of these models think about limitations on debate and deliberation.
House
In the House, of course, a wide variety of limitations on debate exist. Individual control of the floor is limited by a clock, under the hour rule in the House proper and the 5-minute rule during amendment in the Committee of the Whole.
There is also the majoritarian previous question motion, which immediately ends debate/deliberation and brings about final decision on the question(s) to which is it successfully moved. Additionally, resolutions from the rules committee providing for special orders of business are privileged business and can be used by a majority to place strict limits on debate and deliberation.
These procedures produce a chamber that easily constrains minority obstruction and, indeed, often raise more concerns about minority rights.
Senate
The Senate, famously, goes the other direction procedurally. A Senator who obtains the floor is never on the clock under regular order. No majoritarian motion exists for the previous question. Nor can a majority adopt a special order of business that limits debate/deliberation.
Senators are limited by the two-speech rule and the requirement that they actually be talking while they hold the floor (Rule XIX and precedents), which makes it theoretically possible to end debate by waiting them out, but in practice it is nearly impossible when facing a determined minority. And so limiting debate in the Senate defaults to super-majoritarian procedures/consensus: cloture, unanimous consent, and the (little-used) suspension of the rules.
Robert's Rules
Robert's Rules, at first glance, looks more like the Senate. There's a motion for the previous question, but it requires a 2/3 majority (§16:5). There's also a motion to limit debate but that also requires 2/3 (§15:5). The equivalent of a special order of business would also require 2/3 (§43:15), as would a suspension of the rules (§25:2). There's no way for a bare majority to restrict debate/deliberation.1
Robert's Rules does provide for a cap on individuals holding the floor. There's a two-speech rule for each question, and members are limited to 10 minutes for each speech. Still, this seems ripe for a filibuster. With a few members talking 20 minutes a pop on every question, and easily able to create new questions via amendment or other subsidiary motion, it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to stall out the clock in the church basement.
Robert's Rules handles this by (1) assuming good faith on the part of the Members; and (2) significantly empowering and obligating the presiding officer procedurally to deal with dilatory action that violates that good fait and abuses otherwise legitimate procedural action. In effect, Robert's Rules are more protective of minority rights than the House, but less tolerant of minority obstruction than the Senate.
It does this by specifically providing broad authority for the chair to rule dilatory behavior out of order (§39:4). "It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business." These rulings are subject to appeal (§24), but those appeals are decided by simple majority.2
A Third Way?
In effect, Robert's Rules envisions a much more neutral presiding officer than the partisan Speaker in the House, and a much more powerful presiding officer than the largely-procedural President of the Senate. The House centralizes power in the majority through the Speaker, the Senate diffuses it to the minority through the absence of enforceable limits; Robert's Rules lodges authority it in a neutral chair, checked by to appeal to the full body.
This comports with Robert's Rules view of the purpose of parliamentary procedure---"the majority taking part in the assembly who decide the general will, but only following upon the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion." Unlike the House and Senate Standing Rules, Robert's Rules identifies its underlying principles, which assert a "careful balance of the rights...of the majority, of the minority, of individual members...and of all these together."
One objection to this is along the lines of "Sure, Matt, but Robert's Rules is for the church basement, not the U.S. Congress. A neutral Speaker would never work in practice, nor would an expectation of good faith." That might be true, but even a cursory glance at the operation of the Speaker in the British House of Commons should give one pause. Elected as a partisan but required to operate as a neutral officer, the Speaker enforces minority rights within a fundamentally majoritarian system.
Indeed, the discussion of suspending the rules specifically says "no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule."↩
The Senate does provide for some mild limitation on dilatory motions, especially when operating under cloture, but these provisions are very weak relative to either Robert's Rules or the House Rules.↩