The Birth of an Idea
The phrase "No Kings" encapsulates a profound and multifaceted political philosophy that extends far beyond a literal rejection of hereditary monarchy. At its core, it represents a fundamental challenge to any form of absolute, arbitrary power and an unwavering commitment to self-governance and distributed authority.
This concept embodies the termination of domination and tyranny, advocating for a foundational shift where power is not concentrated in a single, arbitrary will but is instead distributed among the people. In a constitutional democracy, the ideal is for state action to emerge from deliberation and contestation, ensuring that all interests and values within the polity play a role in constructing a "common mind" that no single individual or group dominates.
Historical Foundations
Ancient and Enlightenment Critiques
Criticism of monarchy is not a modern phenomenon; it dates back to ancient times. Aristotle, in the 4th century BC, articulated a critique of monarchy, suggesting it was only suitable for populations lacking the capacity for self-governance. He argued that power should ideally be shared among equals, positing that a single individual was more susceptible to corruption than a multitude.
During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli also favored republics for their adaptability over monarchies. The Age of Enlightenment intensified these critiques, with thinkers like Baruch Spinoza expressing preferences for democratic over monarchical institutions, viewing monarchies as legal fictions because no single human being could realistically hold and exercise all the power implied by sovereignty.
Theological and Legal Challenges
Ancient Israel and Greece laid the groundwork for the idea of a higher moral law that constrained even kings and governments. In the 17th century, Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford directly challenged the notion of "the king is law" with his work "Lex, Rex" ("the law is king"), arguing against the divine right of kings.
John Locke further developed these ideas, articulating that freedom in society meant being subject only to laws that applied equally to everyone, rather than the arbitrary will of a ruler.
Revolutionary Moments
The American Revolution: Birth of Self-Governance
Organized anti-monarchism in the American colonies emerged from practical grievances, beginning with resistance to British taxation without representation in 1765. Colonists increasingly believed that King George III had become a tyrant who disregarded their rights and voices.
Thomas Paine's enormously popular essay "Common Sense," published in January 1776, powerfully advocated for a republic—a state without a king. The Declaration of Independence, issued six months later, formally affirmed the break with England. The U.S. Constitution was meticulously designed to prevent the concentration of power in any single individual, incorporating separation of powers, checks and balances, and limited presidential terms.
The French Revolution: Overthrowing the Ancien Régime
Inspired by Enlightenment ideals and the American Revolution, the French Revolution marked one of history's most significant abolitions of monarchy. On September 21, 1792, the Legislative Assembly voted to abolish the monarchy and establish the First Republic, leading to the imprisonment and eventual execution of King Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette.
The storming of the Tuileries Palace in August 1792 by workers and revolutionaries proved decisive, ending the monarchical system and declaring a republic. This uprising was fueled by widespread demands for full political freedom and democracy.
Philosophical Pillars
Popular Sovereignty
The foundational principle that leaders and government are created and sustained by the consent of the people, who are the ultimate source of all political legitimacy.
Rule of Law
All people and institutions are subject to the same laws. As Samuel Rutherford articulated: "the law is king," challenging any arbitrary power.
Egalitarianism
The belief that all humans possess equal fundamental worth and should be accorded equal rights and treatment under the law.
Individual Autonomy
The capacity for self-determination and self-governance, enabling one to lead their life according to authentically their own reasons and values.
Modern Anti-Authoritarianism
Contemporary Movements
The phrase "No Kings" has been widely adopted as a rallying cry in contemporary anti-authoritarian movements. "No Kings Day of Defiance" protests in the United States specifically target perceived authoritarian tendencies of political leaders, promoting slogans such as "no thrones, no crowns, no kings."
These movements frame themselves as cultural affirmations of the democratic vision of a self-governing people, actively pushing back against government overreach, attacks on civil rights, and what they term the "militarization of democracy."
The "No Kings Act"
The "No Kings Act," a legislative proposal introduced by Senate Democrats, serves as a direct effort to affirm that presidents have no immunity from criminal prosecution. This act directly reinforces the foundational constitutional principle that "no man is above the law."
The Act represents a deliberate attempt to assert Congress's co-equal authority to interpret the Constitution, specifically challenging the notion of "judicial supremacy"—the idea that the Supreme Court holds the final say on constitutional meaning.
Corporate Power and Economic Democracy
Contemporary applications of "No Kings" extend beyond governmental authority to include critiques of concentrated economic power. Modern movements highlight how corporate entities exert control over vast aspects of society, from production and pollution to food systems, technology, and data.
The movement challenges the notion that corporations operate solely within a free market, pointing instead to their systemic power and influence over democratic processes, framing corporate dominance as a form of unelected "kingship."
The Ongoing Challenge
The pursuit of a "No Kings" society is an ongoing, complex process of balancing ideals with practical realities. Even as we reject traditional forms of monarchy, new concentrations of power emerge that require constant vigilance and adaptation of our democratic principles.
The digital age presents new challenges: technological surveillance, corporate data dominance, and the concentration of wealth that can influence democratic processes. The "No Kings" principle must evolve to address these modern forms of potential tyranny while preserving the freedoms it seeks to protect.
As we face these challenges, the core message remains clear: no individual, corporation, or institution should wield unchecked power over others. The eternal vigilance required to maintain democracy demands that each generation rediscover and reapply the principle that, in a free society, there are simply no kings.