I think because it's so car-centric lots of people have to be able to drive to hold a job or go to school. So it's seen almost more like a "right". Compared to my friends in London or Sydney were the view seems much more that proficiency should be worked towards and licensure earned.
There is probably some parallel to gun culture, though that actually is a "right" here. A person who has no business around weapons can still buy enough to kit a small army. Beat their spouse? Meh, they can still own guns. Road rage? Psh, that's no reason to pull their drivers license or their guns.
Also, I was 13 when I got a license to drive. My state had the lowest age I am aware of for kids who lived in rural areas and didn't have school bus service so they could drive themselves to school. So yeah, 13 years old and I drove a car from home into the city of 300k people to get to my school. The only accident I have ever been responsible for was wiping out a mailbox when I slid on some ice. Motorcycle license at 15 years old after a short written test and riding the bike about six city blocks. I'm technically a successful example of the low age limits and I think it was fucking stupid.
This is absolutely wild to me. I'm an engineer, mechanical background, related to traffic in the air rather than on roads, and we have SO MANY REMINDERS pushing the idea of proactive safety measures and mistake-proofing any potential safety hazards. From industry standards to regulatory body and customer requirements, to internal procedures, backed by tools and specific courses in engineering coursework. Folks would be in jail if they acted like this, like, "yeah, that plane door might fly open if some idiot goes at it the wrong way but *shrug, we'll tweak the design once someone actually does it and kills a planeload of people.