<center>https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2014/03/26/20/55/trekking-299000_960_720.jpg</center>

B. Singh recently voiced his discontent with what he says is a *disturbing level of disunity with Jamaican lawmakers*. Singh is the father of the recently titled Miss World, [Miss Jamaica Toni-Ann Singh](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50799573). Her father, a former educator, says he has high hopes for Jamaica and wants to see leaders and stakeholders come together to promote peace. 

Singh himself has worked in [high-risk Jamaican communities and has been](http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20191223/unity-key-moving-jamaica-forward-says-miss-worlds-dad) previously dubbed the <b>'Peace Man'</b> for his efforts. 

Right now, he says that lawmaking institutions on the island are not united, and until they are united there will be no peace. 

But all of those individuals that make up the government <b>have different agendas that they will always be looking to pursue and protect</b>, even if that were only to fulfill what they think represents the will of those who voted for them. It's safe to assume that it would be difficult to get 2 million people on the same page, or even their dozens of representatives at least. 

### The highest hope is that people would voluntarily seek to move forward, and not have the government made up of a few, be the ones to choose an agenda to be forced onto the rest. 

<center></center>Statism itself is rooted in conflict, whether it be taking place in Jamaica, the United States, Mexico, Australia, or elsewhere. There will always be conflict and problems to deal with, whether things are organized in a statist fashion or not. We might hold onto hopes that everyone would agree to live peacefully and not promote conflict with others, but we still see that there are many out there today who support and advocate for conflict on various scales. 

<center>https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2019/10/06/10/03/team-4529717_960_720.jpg</center>
"Moving forward" doesn't have to include the group being forced to move as one, but each individual actor moving forward according to their own hopes, vision, goals, abilities. 

Singh admits that he believes that establishing peace in Jamaica will require the collaboration of <b>"every stakeholder"</b> and if they were all working toward one cause then they would be able to accomplish it in no time. 

Valuing peace is a commendable preference, but a goal being pursued in a forced fashion *through government leaders* is a goal that isn't worth pursuing at all. 

Moving forward to one might look drastically different to another, and though there might be virtue in pursuing peace, that doesn't mean using government to achieve it is ever the right path to take. Since statism itself breeds conflict and encourages one to try and use force to take from another, there is no surprise that we might look to the political landscape today or at any time in history and see <b>general disagreement</b> with those members who are involved in operating the machine, or among those living under it.


Pics:
pixabay
<center>https://steemitimages.com/DQmaW48YhsgLS2fxaYkXCuon3tFpQEEh1tSUCU3jjJXv7RT/%40doitvoluntarily.gif</center>