The aristocracy (barons) wanted some protection against arbitrary (unpredictable and possibly favoring one baron over another unfairly) decisions by the king.

This is STILL what the 'rule of law' means today: it's the way the 'rank and file' of the billionaire plutocracy get some protection against arbitrary decisions by the person they install as the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.

But in imposing class inequality on ordinary people, and in repressing efforts of ordinary people to throw off the yoke of class inequality, the 'rule of law' ain't what it's cracked up to be. The 'rule of law' might affect HOW the upper class executes its domination over and repression of ordinary people, but it does not impede that domination and impression one iota!

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos no doubt benefit from the 'rule of law." We don't.

The question is not, "Is it important to have a 'rule of law'?" The question is, "For what purpose, for which values, should there be a 'rule of law'?"

When there is an egalitarian revolution and the people who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid are in power, and not the people who value inequality and domination of the many by the few, THEN it will be the time to wax eloquent about the desirability of the 'rule of law.' But not before then!