Patrimonialism & Modern Politics

In "Politics as a Vocation", Weber says "Like the political organizations that preceded it historically, the state represents a relationship in which people rule over other people. This relationship is based on the legitimate use of force (that is to say, force that is perceived as legitimate). If the state is to survive, those who are ruled over must always acquiesce in the authority that is claimed by the rulers of the day. When do they do so and why (34)?" I think that Weber's discussion of patrimonialism and sultanism highlights the most unbelievable and difficult to understand examples of acquiescence. He says that such situations "arise wherever the ruler develops an administration and a military force that, however, are purely the personal instruments of the master" (37). While I find such methods - which are so firmly dependent on loyalty and seem to leave little room for change/improvement - troubling, it is almost more so that they are so similar to our own modern day governmental structures. Some of these qualifications - such as personal militaries - have been left behind, but the general structure of these systems has remained. In our country many administrative and bureaucratic institutions in government and business are similarly set up, with a strong basis in tradition and custom. But as we have seen, they leave little room for oversight/regulation and adaptation. As society has changed, people have seemingly become less willing to accept leaders based upon tradition and loyalty, instead turning to personal gain through almost any means necessary. So how have these models not been abandoned by now? How much do we value comfort and tradition that we have been unable to come up with another option? Is this just another sign of the stronghold of capitalism (as Weber seems to argue, capitalism, bureaucracy and these models are closely intertwined) that these models are still keeping hold of our politics?