I'm not confused at all about the concept. Your stance is incomplete. "Rule of law" does not stand alone either, you've also mixed in a few concepts that frankly do not apply, but we'll ignore that for now.
"Rule of law" requires government (and it's officers) be above all, both in practice and in theory. Just on the basis of who can violate rights, perceived or otherwise, and who in turn pays for the consequences, it fails in the test of "equality". And in reality, it's enshrined in multiple jurisdictions varying levels of immunity.
Even if you think tax money, once assessed and collected, belongs to the government.
Ah—you know the sense in which it was intended but, unusually (I intend this descriptively, not pejoratively), reject its definition as self-contradictory. That, I was not expecting.
I don’t think we’re gonna bridge that gap productively in a comment section. Have a nice weekend (sincerely).
"Rule of law" requires government (and it's officers) be above all, both in practice and in theory. Just on the basis of who can violate rights, perceived or otherwise, and who in turn pays for the consequences, it fails in the test of "equality". And in reality, it's enshrined in multiple jurisdictions varying levels of immunity.
Even if you think tax money, once assessed and collected, belongs to the government.