Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.
This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.
Nothing is ever truly settled. Pointlessly respecting jurisprudence without regard for time and society is a recipe for contempt of the law.
So far I’ve seen driving:traveling::printing:speech. Not only is that not an argument, it conveniently overlooks that we have restrictions on speech today - libel and slander, incitement, etc.
What is your thesis? Driving should be completely unconstrained by the state? Why? Or is it that we should have national IDs? Why?