You may not use controlled-access roads (i.e., those that do not have surface intersections with other roads, but use offramps and onramps, except on or in a motorized vehicle--this is established by statute. However, those roads are not all of the roads in America.
Do I have a (nonrevokable) right to use the public property in a reasonable manner? Why?
Ah, there is the rub: "A reasonable manner." That means that you may not travel in such a way as to impede traffic (all controlled access roads have MINIMUM speeds as well as MAXIMUM speeds).
PS 'nonrevokable' means: may not be arbritrarily revoked.
PPS: it's spelled "nonrevocable."
Are you conceding the the state may arbritrarily deny Drivers Licenses since driving is a privilege?
Ys, they may, and they do. For example, the state arbitrarily holds that one must be of a minimum age before one is allowed to have a driver's license. The state also arbitrarily holds that you may lose your license if you manifestly demonstrate an inability to "play well with others" on the road (DUI, reckless driving, etc).
My argument is this:
The state HAS a compelling interest to insure safety of the roads, BUT this interest is not sufficient to use licensing as a means to do so.
In short, the state may license and such a license may be used to help prove competency, or to allow ease of administration of tickets. In an unlicenced individual the state MUST prove incompetence and they may require immediate payment of tickets.
I should have the right to CERTIFY MY DRIVING ABILITY *without* CERTIFYING MY IDENTITY:
A state should have a licence where I am required to give the print of my big toe to establish identity. NO OTHER INFORMATION IS NECCESSARY to satisfy the states interest in establishing safe roadways.
This is based on the principle of minimum infringement.
If you may have a gun without license, I may use an automobile without license - BECAUSE A GUNS BULLET IS CAPABLE OF LEAVING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PRESENTS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.