‘No Kings’ Isn’t a Gotcha

Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for

You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:

No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.

It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.

No Kings Doesn’t Mean “No Rules”

At its core, “No Kings” is about opposing unchecked, absolute power. It doesn’t mean no one ever tells you what to do. It means no one person decides everything for everyone.

In a monarchy, power is centralized in one figure. There are no votes. No accountability. No appeals. No participation.

In a democracy, even under strain, decision-making is distributed—among elected officials, public health agencies, school boards, local governments, and yes, even private businesses. The pandemic created pressure, urgency, and sometimes confusion. But the power was still divided. The decisions were still debated. And the people still had recourse.

If you disagreed with a rule, you could protest. People did.
If you thought a mandate went too far, you could sue. People did.
If you didn’t like how your leaders handled it, you could vote them out. People did that too.

That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy under pressure—still functioning, still flawed, but still ours.

You Had a Say. You Still Do.

That’s the key difference. In a real monarchy, you don’t get a say. There are no protests without punishment. No courts to appeal to. No elections to change the course.

But in our system—even when the stakes are high—you still have power. You may not get your way every time. No one does. But you are part of the system that shapes the rules.

That’s what “No Kings” is supposed to mean: that no one person gets to rule over you without limits or consequences.

And if our idea of freedom can’t coexist with shared responsibility, maybe what we’re calling freedom isn’t really that at all.

Some of This Wasn’t Even the Government

Another important piece often left out of the conversation: not all the frustrations people faced during the pandemic came from the government.

A lot of mandates and restrictions came from private companies—firings, customer policies, event rules, travel protocols. That’s not federal overreach. That’s private actors making decisions within a capitalist system that already gives them enormous latitude.

That doesn’t make it feel any better—but it does change the accountability equation.

If you’re angry about how much influence corporations have over your life, you’re not alone. That’s a conversation we should absolutely be having. But let’s not confuse that with democratic governance. In many cases, government was the only thing limiting corporate overreach, not causing it.

The Irony: Be Careful What We Call “Freedom”

Here’s what gives me pause: some of the loudest critics of the “No Kings” message today are cheering for a political figure who says things like:

• “I alone can fix it.”

• “I will be your retribution.”

• “If you come after me, I come after you.”

These aren’t the words of someone who believes in checks and balances. That’s not local control. That’s not collaborative governance. It’s unilateral power with vengeance attached.

And if we’re going to oppose kings, that opposition has to be consistent. It has to apply even when the would-be king shares your values—or your enemies.

Because history has shown us over and over: concentrated power never stays friendly for long.

What “No Kings” Really Means

So what does it really mean to say “No Kings”?

It means:

• No one person drags us into war.

• No one person jails us without trial.

• No one person decides what we believe, say, or do.

• No one person uses the machinery of government to punish dissent.

It doesn’t mean we always agree. It doesn’t mean the system always gets it right.

But it means we decide—together. Through law. Through debate. Through elections. Through systems designed to correct course, not cement control.

It’s slower. It’s messier. And in a crisis, it can feel frustrating.

But it’s not tyranny. It’s freedom with guardrails. And it’s worth protecting.

So yes:

No Kings.
Not then.
Not now.
Not from the left.
Not from the right.
Not from anyone.