In your review of Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giraux, 2011), you cite the three critical components of good political order: “a strong state, the application of the rule of law to all parts of society, and a means of holding rulers to account for their actions” (“The Good, the Great, and the Gelded,” April 2, 2011). One theme that connects the three is the pernicious influence of patrimonialism. “Celibacy was vital in the battle against corruption and rent-seeking within the church,” you point out, “which were the typical consequences of patrimony.” According to Fukuyama, the first modern state was the Qin dynasty in China. Founded in 221 BC, it introduced “merit-based (non-aristocratic) military leadership combined with mass conscription.” It also had “a bureaucracy recruited from a permanent administrative cadre selected on the basis of ability rather than family connections.” Examples abound. “The Janissaries,” you continue, “the elite slave troops of the Ottoman emperors, were not allowed to marry.” Nepotism was the reason for such a policy. And so on, and so forth. Apparently, patrimonialism is the bugbear of the book. To put it bluntly, the family and good government do not go together. Although I do agree with Fukuyama, at least as rendered in your review, his analysis will surely raise hackles around the world. The family is supposed to be no less than the very foundation of our civilization.