You've got to be kidding.
I'd agree with you if you said that WALKING on the roadway is not subject to licensing, but a motor vehicle requires an operator's permit.
By current positive law, you are correct. You must have a driver's license to drive a car, fly, or ride a train.
And anyone is free to walk or ride a horse or a bike or a bus - for now.
But really, why is it that our freedom of movement should be restricted in this way? Is there some natural power in government which obliges it to license drivers? Aren't the interests of public safety simply served by testing users once to ensure they can see, hear, and know the laws of the road? Why is a perpetual license then needed, except as a reminder that we are not really free to travel, and that it can be taken away by the government at its whim or as punishment?
Do advances in technology vacate the force of natural rights we hold? I.e., we have freedom of movement so long as it doesn't involve any use of modern technology?
This is no different than saying we have the freedom to live in any house we wish, but must obtain a license of government permission to build one if it is anything more sophisticated than a mud hut. Actually, come to think of it, that is exactly how building permits work.