At a guess, the law within states goes along the likes of you have the privilege to drive on public roads providing you are licensed by the appropriate authority.
No license then you cannot exercise that privilege on public roads.
(, Thu 6 Jun 2024, 11:35, Reply)
So if you can reinstate the privilege without reinstating the license then that clearly shows there's a separation between the two. What's the point of that? One is not functional without the other, so what possible reason could there be for removing or reinstating the privilege without removing or reinstating the license at the same time?
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Thu 6 Jun 2024, 11:42,
Reply)
Maybe it means he's not banned from driving.
However he didn't have a licence.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Thu 6 Jun 2024, 12:00,
Reply)
In practice if you don't have the privilege you can't re-obtain the license.
So the state can address violations of the law to different degrees* e.g. suspending your license (temporary until conditions are met e.g. passage of time), revoking your license (permanent until conditions are met that merit you being permitted to re-apply), revoking your privilege (you no longer have the legal basis for a license).**
*Legal privileges historically were private laws (privilegium) that granted an individual or institution certain privileges that they otherwise did not have
**In the UK if you don't want to bother with all this then be King as its part of Royal Prerogative
(, Thu 6 Jun 2024, 12:07, Reply)