I liked the article.  It was funny and thought-provoking.  But I think it's missing the point of where the disagreement is between this point of view and the majority today that follow more in Rawls' camp.  They would argue that the proper analogy to a game of baseball would be that every player entering the game would get randomly assigned extra strikes or balls, analogous to their birth and natural abilities, and that they would then need to have the umpire take away those extra strikes and balls with additional rules in order to make the game fair again as it should be.

I think that Objectivists want to make things fair given everyones existing standing as the starting point, and the social justice warriors want to make things fair despite everyones existing unequal standing, which they view as accidental, and unfair.

Rule of law means that laws are certain and known in advance. Laws envision no particular outcome except that of allowing people to peaceably pursue their own objectives. Finally, and most importantly, laws are equally applied to everyone, including government officials.

I think his analogy to baseball shows why this definition of rule of law would be superior because it would allow more clarity and consistency.  But I suspect that people who disagree would disagree with this definition of rule of law and say that anything besides creating "fair" outcomes is secondary.