Lockean property logic lets oustees be displaced without being dispossessed.

Evidence

Such people may belong to the land but, within a Lockeian logic of private property, the land doesn’t belong to them. Thus in terms of the right to remain (not to speak of the right to just compensation) they can readily be cast as uninhabitants, residual presences from a precapitalist era whose anachronistic criteria for dwelling may be overridden by the legal logic of private property as self-development within a larger narrative of national development. In these terms, oustees can be displaced without being dispossessed. — Rob Nixon, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism…, 458

Categorization

• XREF: Directly opposes ch22’s claim that formal land ownership masks subterranean dispossession; both hinge on who counts as legal owner under Lockean frameworks (land/place + law/institutions polyad strands). — connects to: Locke’s labour-mixing argument licenses annexation by assuming nature has no own value — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 420; Displacement can occur without physical movement when land loses its life-sustaining character — Rob Nixon, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism…, 58; Claims about European identity rest on a Lockean theory of property and cultivation. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 811 (+2 more)
• DEFINE: Key distinction between displacement and dispossession (one can be forced off land without formally losing title) central to Nixon’s theory.

Broader Connections

• Claims about European identity rest on a Lockean theory of property and cultivation. #expands (0.85) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 811
• Friction is displaced rather than eliminated onto the lives of the excluded #expands (0.80) — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger, 779
• Locke grounded legitimate rule in individual property rights, separating state from market #expands (0.75) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 278