Oh, you're drinking that Kool Aid, too? Don't forget that if driving were a privelige, it would have to repose somewhere before the monarchy decided to give it to us. This supposes that those privelieges are naturally the property of government, to be dispensed at its pleasure.
It's thinking like that that has brought us revocation of drivers' licences over issues unrelated to the safety of other drivers on the road, like high school grades and child support enforcement.
If they can do that, if the "privelige" is their property to give or withhold as they see fit, why would it be morally objectionable for them to dispense licences on political criteria? It's already happened with concealed carry licences. I believe it's a right, subject to revocation only for behavior that endangers other drivers or pedestrians, and with the burden of proof firmly on the government (presumption for the driver).
bodies flying from cars do endanger other drivers or pedestrians.
Bump for your clear-headed reasoning!
Fine analysis BUMP!
"We have decreed that our subjects may drive auto-mobiles! Hear the word of the King!"