The no leader idea goes fine when everything is OK. When an emergency arises, a leader is needed. When you are doing a lot of off-trail travel, someone has to "lead" and others need to follow. If everyone were just to go his own way it would be chaos. A leader does not have to be activily leading all the time, but it should be understood who is the leader when emergency or disagreement arise. I personally do not want to have arguments all day on which way to go. Someone leads, others follow. A good leader takes suggestions and can be very democratic, but when the stuff hits the fan, someone has to make the final decision. I find that discussing leadership roles and responsibilities before the trip helps out a lot. I am definitly bias towards leadership. I worked for the National Outdoor LEADERSHIP School. We taught leadership. We believe in leadership. We think leadership is essential to any expedition. Expeditions with good leadership reach their goals more often and run smoothly. Good leadership makes the group experience really fun and rewarding.

As for your boy scout example, I bet if things got bad (someone broke a leg, a severe storm, etc), you would have become the leader. After all, that is why an adult is required in Scout outings. Leading does not mean you are out front bellowing orders. It means you bring order when chaos happens.