Bottom Line on Loyalty and Unity

 If you're offering me a good deal you don't need my loyalty, merely my prudence. I don't need to [[unify]] with you. On the contrary, the trade is successful and useful precisely because our value schedules differ.

 It is parasites who need loyalty and unity. The traitorous leech must convince me that their value schedule is the same as mine, and thus serving theirs is the same as serving mine. The traitorous mosquito must convince me that I owe them loyalty so I don't simply terminate the bad deal. (Smack, crunch.) They must defraud me, betraying me twice over. The more they demand loyalty, the less loyalty they deserve. 

 This is only vaguely workable because you think mortals are alive, and they're not. Zombies pretend their mindless involuntary obedience is loyalty - quite rationally afraid that you'll notice they simply obey the nearest necromancer and are wholly untrustworthy. Slaves pretend their fear of the whip is loyalty. Yes, controlling slaves and zombies is not a trade, and it is important, but it also isn't loyalty. Zombies cannot control themselves; even if they were being loyal, it would merely be a reflection of the necromancer's loyalty to himself. Slaves are too stupid to understand their own self-interest and can't be considered trade-capable. Slaves are too stupid to cooperate. Exactly like an animal, they can't uphold a contract.

 Zombies and slaves are neither meaningfully alive nor meaningfully individuals. They're good at pretending in a vain attempt to defend themselves from the obvious attacks, but if you mindlessly try the attacks they work immediately, and don't work at all on non-zombies and non-slaves. 

 Leech: "The slaves are loyal, why aren't you loyal?"
 Answer: "The slaves are not loyal, they're slaves."
 Answer: "Who are you and why are you talking to me?"
 Answer: "It has not been proven that you are smart, therefore you're stupid, therefore you're ontologically committed to the idea that I shouldn't be loyal. Fuck off or die."