Fact check: How does the No Kings group propose to organize society without traditional government structures?

1. Bold Claims: Power to the People, Not to Kings — What No Kings Actually Asserts

The core claim advanced by the No Kings movement is that political power should diffuse from centralized authorities to communities and individuals, achieved through activism and institutional experimentation rather than traditional top-down government structures. Their texts foreground nonviolent action and collective involvement as mechanisms to contest authoritarianism and cultivate democratic norms, positioning protest and community organizing as both means and ends in political transformation ^[2]. This framing reframes governance as an emergent property of social relations and local practices, with the movement treating autonomy and mutual aid as foundational principles rather than policy levers. The sources present this as both a strategic posture—favoring decentralization to avoid concentration of power—and a normative claim about legitimate authority, meaning the movement prioritizes distributed decision-making over hierarchical control ^[2].

2. Institutional Alternatives: Public-Common Partnerships as a Practical Lever

Among the most concrete proposals linked to the No Kings discourse are Public-Common Partnerships (PCPs), which seek to blend public derisking with common ownership and democratic oversight. PCPs are described as policy tools enabling public institutions to support projects of shared governance, reversing market-oriented reforms that privatized public assets by creating structures for popular control over critical resources and infrastructure ^[3]. Advocates argue PCPs provide a bridge between state capacity and community empowerment, allowing for large-scale projects that remain accountable to users and workers. Critics within the materials note PCPs require robust legal frameworks and public willingness to cede managerial authority, indicating PCPs are more an enabling architecture than a full-service government replacement ^[3].

3. Organizing Principles: Autonomy, Solidarity, Responsibility — The Movement’s Theoretical Core

Analyses of No Kings tie its organizational philosophy to long-standing anarchist and cooperative traditions emphasizing autonomy, solidarity, and responsibility as the trinity of alternative governance. These texts argue that voluntary association, mutual aid, and local accountability can sustain complex social functions when paired with institutional supports and shared norms ^[1]. The movement cites historical and theoretical precedents for decentralized networks and federated cooperation, suggesting that layered, interdependent formations—local assemblies, federations, and commons institutions—can substitute for centralized state apparatuses in many domains. However, the documents also acknowledge conceptual and practical gaps remain around coordination at scale and enforcement of shared rules ^[1].

4. Technology and Design: Governance Stacks and Modular Tools as Enablers

Some of the movement-aligned analyses point to technical governance frameworks—onchain execution, modular governance, granular permissions—as tools to operationalize decentralization, suggesting digital mechanisms can distribute authority while preserving coordination ^{[4] [5]}. Examples include governance tokens, optimistic dual governance plugins, and modular permissioning that separate active participants from passive stakeholders, enabling efficient decision pathways with stakeholder veto options. These technologies are presented as potential infrastructure for federated commons and PCPs, allowing transparency and traceable collective decision-making. The materials caution that technical fixes cannot substitute for political legitimacy, legal recognition, or equitable access, and that design choices embed value judgments about participation and power ^{[4] [5]}.

5. What’s Missing: Implementation, Scale, and Contingency Planning

Across the sources, there is a consistent admission that while principles and enabling mechanisms are articulated, a step-by-step, universal roadmap for replacing state functions is not provided ^{[2] [1]}. The movement emphasizes adaptable, context-specific experiments—community assemblies, PCP pilots, and tech-enabled governance—but does not offer standardized answers for complex functions like national defense, monetary policy, or interstate dispute resolution. The literature recognizes potential failure modes: capture by elites, coordination breakdowns, and legal pushback. These omissions frame No Kings more as a strategic orientation and toolkit for plural institutional experiments than a turnkey substitute for government ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Competing Perspectives and Potential Agendas: Empowerment vs. Pragmatism

Observers of No Kings come from varied vantage points: proponents present the movement as empowering and corrective to neoliberal centralization, highlighting PCPs and decentralized tech as democratizing innovations; skeptical analyses stress vagueness on scale and enforcement, warning against romanticizing small-scale autonomy without contingencies ^{[3] [1]}. The movement’s emphasis on nonviolence and community empowerment serves both normative and mobilizational functions, potentially appealing to grassroots activists while signaling to policymakers the desirability of institutional experimentation. Given the sources’ diversity, it is important to note some materials appear promotional (movement statements) while others analyze tools neutrally, so agendas range from advocacy to technical exploration ^{[2] [4]}.

Conclusion: The No Kings body of work outlines a coherent set of principles—decentralization, collective action, PCPs, and enabling governance technologies—and encourages plural, experimental pathways to reduce concentrated power. It does not, however, present a single, complete governance architecture to replace all traditional state functions; instead, it offers a mix of values, policy proposals, and technical tools intended to be tested and adapted to varied contexts ^{[1] [3] [4]}.