Fight for freedom

Yes that's the just of the argument, though my friend would argue that you don't legitimately own the car in the first place. Why do you think its so silly? Is property natural and if so how? And even if it is natural does that mean its just? Is that similar to Nozick's argument? I suppose a counter may be that you may own yourself but you don't own the environment as other people live so close by (unless your on a desert island). I'm trying to think of counter's and than counter arguments to them as I want to be able to answer well in response to debates with socialists on this issue.

A socialist friend put forward an interesting argument about property. When someone owns property they have freedom but are they not depriving other people of freedom by preventing others from using that property? Of course a counter could be the tragedy of the commons etc but that is more the practical effects rather than a moral counter argument. What do you think? Does freedom create a lack of freedom? How can private property be defended if it does diminish others freedom?