Who cares banning Uber?

-Dane Avanzi

As I expected, common sense won again in the controversy of the Uber, which has been a source of stir in the main capitals of the world. After the City Council of Rio de Janeiro to prohibit the application by law sanctioned by Mayor Eduardo Paes, behold the Uber obtained an injunction in the injunction, which granted custody on grounds of unconstitutionality of the law which restricted the guarantees of individual liberties to drivers and citizens who use the service.

As a lawyer, I understand the decision in such difficult times that Brazilian society lives on the grounds of political and economic crisis, renews our faith in democratic institutions and the Judiciary, as well as in the tripartição of powers, which is one as your source, but a tripartite (three branches-Executive, legislative and judiciary) with the aim of avoiding arbitrariness as in casu.

It is necessary to remind the members of the Executive power that their decisions must be backed by law, aiming at the common well-being, as requires enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu, which greatly contributed to the formation of the State, saying that “the law should limit the acts and powers of the rulers”. Such thinking is the germ of the democratic State of law and the principle of Legality which guarantees citizens do everything what is not expressly prohibited, and to the rulers act only supported in law.

The case demonstrates a situation where and edilidade and the Mayor of the wonderful city if exceeded in their duties and prerogatives, in the eagerness to meet trade unions and clientelísticos interests of a particular category-disregarding the benefits that the Uber service brings to its customers regarding quality, seriousness and security. It should be stressed that those now flying against the Uber, for decades had the opportunity to innovate and they didn’t. Well. The law, as well as the rule of law, no help to those who have fallen asleep.

Thus, the State, in addition to being unable to provide quality public services to citizens and tourists, labora in boycotting a consecrated service worldwide-recognized as an option of transport serving millions of people around the world and today is a business valued at $ 50 billion. Why does meritocracy assaults that much? They should not seek to learn and use the technological tools to improve the management of res publica?

The laws that prohibit the Uber are a threat to the individual guarantees of the Brazilian citizens, drivers and users and, so, the injunction still provides daily fine of 50 1000 R$ real, if the city try to restrain the movement of Uber cars. Another aspect to be noted is the repudiation of some political leaders in relation to entrepreneurship and the free enterprise, in which the citizen seeks independence, putting into practice their skills and resources in a particular business. What do you want with that, worsen the public accounts?

Free enterprise, represented here by drivers of Uber, a sound economy, should be encouraged with State policies, not punished and repelled, especially in times of unemployment rates rise and new and small businesses are an alternative to unemployed people. Innovations, especially those established worldwide, should be incorporated into the life of the person consists a way of doing things, usually with more effectiveness and efficiency. In short, prohibit the Uber is resist innovations, is encouraging patronage and is especially tolir the freedom of a Brazilian citizen. Congratulations to the judiciary that I heard in this episode to position itself for the benefit of the citizen, pointing out the unconstitutionality of the law in question.

Source: [Uol]