I've run the no-state thought experiment through to the end, and it ends with monarchy. > How does one ensure they have a shepherd of the flock that really cares about the flock? A tough one for sure! The OP definition of 'nation' is wrong. The prefix 'nat-' means birth, as in 'natal'. So a nation is united by common birth/descent/blood, all the other commonalities are irrelevant to the definition. A nation is a family. So the leader problem is naturally solved by the consideration of the nation as a family on a macro scale. In a basic family unit, the father is the natural leader. He cares about those under his charge because they are his children. Likewise a national leader must be bound by blood to those under him. It's a nearly universal biological imperative to protect your own blood. So ideally a nation forms from a founding family, where the literal founding father is the king, and he chooses his favourite son to be his successor. This is how monarchies form naturally, and this is what would happen in a no-state environment, provided there are no gangs taking over first.