When I imagine a real "Loyalist" engaging, I think they would want something much stronger than "it's good to be a good trade partner." There is an actively good thing about being truly loyal friends/allies who see things through thick and thin and have each other's back, even when they aren't being perfect. I do think loyal-through-thick-and-thin is also a good piece of the tapestry of humanity. I can visualize why you'd want the world to be organized around it. I'd be sad if it disappeared completely as a concept. I have friends and partners that I do, indeed, not go publicly criticizing (at least not without having a good heart-to-heart conversation about it first). This is generally because I've chosen to be a person can feel safe and vulnerable around, without having to carefully watch themselves. How appropriate this is depends on what kind of relationship we have, and how much power each of us have, and whether someone has been abusing that power or failing to be a good partner. At it's best, loyalty-driven relationships let people feel safe, and take bigger risks. At their worst, they cover for abuse, and use emotional blackmail to trap people. I haven't thought that much about this, but, my guess i that loyalty is not a good virtue to build large modern institutions around. Like it makes sense that they _work_, in the sense of creating a self-propagating institution. But it seems at odds with having an institution "by the people, for the people" etc.