II.   Sovereign

Usufruct, also known as ususfructus, is when one (1)  person enjoys certain rights in property owned by another. Rights of way and water rights were also examples of usufruct; rights to light or to view were urban examples. Usus meant the use of a thing, from the ancient Holly definition of use, while fructus corresponded to fruits, enjoyment.

Contrary to the mythical history created that Roman law honored justice and fairness, the ordinary leaseholder had no protection beyond a contractual right against a landlord and could not assign tenancy.

Fields and arable land were called fundus by the Romans, (from which the word and meaning of “fund” is directly derived). Thus even if a Roman citizen, if one did not possess sufficient “fundus” (funds), then one could be forced into servitude to another, even conscripted into the army.

In contradiction to most historical claims, this Roman legal invention of usufruct was not some enlightened legal concept, but a means of making the arbitrary and unilateral seizure of any and all possessions, land, tenements of a population at any time completely lawful, while at the same time enabling the poorest to manage the land and make a living while denying them lawful land rights and ownership of the land.

While it is mistakenly believed that usufruct is somehow compatible as the ancient concept of leases by the Holly throughout the ancient world, Roman land rights offered no rights nor remedy to the poor. Usufruct made sure such injustices were seen as “lawful”.

The Roman concept of usufruct was reintroduced in the 16th Century, whereby all conquered land by the “Crown” is considered in allodium (absolute ownership), with all tenancy in usufruct.