I'm assuming you're referring to the US when you say "We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people..." That part is true. But the most powerful people get there, largely by breaking the law, trusting it won't be enforced; Even when it is, the punishment won't really matter.

Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone “beneath” them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment.

No actually. The "Rule of Law", replaced the "Rule of The King". Meaning instead of The King being the ultimate authority, The Law is ultimate authority. Prior to The Law, The King made rules, but those weren't Laws. You may be making a bit of an equivocation fallacy here.

The rule of law is literally “might makes right”, you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.

No That's the Rule of The King again.
The Rule of The King by the way, is the natural consequence of anarchy.

And none of what you wrote directly disagrees with what I wrote.
You think it does, due in part to the misconception or Rule and Law I just tried to explain.