What do you even need a government (with a benevolent leader at the top) for, if you don't have any bad actors?
Or by example: You still want someone to organise weekly garbage collection efficiently and equitably. The government does that.
Of course, details depend for example on what our 'no bad actor' assumption actually means, and perhaps on what ideas you have about human nature and history.
> Even in a no-bad-actors world you still have many different competing interests to balance due to different people's needs and preferences, so you probably want some kind of polling/citizens forum/whatever to gather input for making decisions, and an organisation that looks at all the details and makes the decisions on behalf of the collective.
Yes, you'll want some kind of organisation. My comment was just that the organisation would probably not look like a monarchy, benevolent or otherwise.
There's no such thing as bad actors. Just people who's interests are not aligned to yours (you are their "bad actor")
Have a look at eg https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tJQsxD34maYw2g5E4/thomas-c-s... or https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2SeN2MjmMzZB25hBo/insights-f... for some ideas about alternative definitions.
You could also go by something like 'You are not a bad actor, if (outside of emergencies) you don't lie, cheat, murder or steal.' Or you can go with something closer to game theory, and emphasis cooperation in something like a prisoner dilemma.