The pragmatic answer is that some regulation of the roads is necessary in order to avoid bloodshed and chaos.
Which bloodshed and chaos is avoided by making driving a privilege? We still have reckless drivers. All that the licensing gives us is that dealing with them is made a little easier for the Executive government — it is easier to withdraw a privilege than deprive someone of a right.
But that ease is abuse-prone. We deliberately make it harder for the government to fight other "bloodshed and chaos" — consider the 4th and 5th Amendments, the Miranda rights, etc. Generally, we'd rather have a bona-fide criminal go free on occasion, than endanger freedom of the rest of us.
Why don't we apply the same principle to driving? You are, I'm sure, up in arms against NSA eavesdropping — and you would not buy the "it helps prevent bloodshed and chaos" argument in that case. Why the inconsistency?
As you've probably noticed, the real world is driven more by necessity, than by abstract ideological principles
Yes, I have noticed, that the term "pragmatic" is often used where "unprincipled" would've better described the approach.