If that's what you think, you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't believe you'll find a lot of popular support for the idea that unlicensed drivers and fake surgeons are things we should embrace.
I don't see freedom requiring to embrace such things. Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you feel like doing, that's anarchy. Freedom means you can do whatever you like that does not infringe upon the rights of the person next to you. You can't make other people slaves to your freedom.
The difference I would say about your examples is that the actions of those people will potentially infringe directly upon the rights of others so there is probable cause for prior restraint. But even in those cases you can point out that the person wishes to perform a singular direct action without adequate training on another person that will most likely result in the harming of that person. You are at least accusing that person of wanting to do something that will likely be bad, with evidence to back it up, since performing surgery without training is a bad idea. I'm sure you can find examples of why it's a bad idea.
I would see that as quite different than preventing a person from boarding an aircraft with absolutely no evidence or, in some cases, even an accusation of any wrongdoing.
Why does a person on a public road infringe on rights but not a person on a plane in public airspace? In both cases, the idea seems to be "You can't use this public conduit if we believe you'd be an unreasonable danger to the other people around." Neither requires a trial.
When driving a car you are the operator and need to show you can do so safely without harming others on the public road. You are not required to have a license to be a passenger in a car on a public road.
When flying in an aircraft you are a passenger and therefore no license is required. But be assured that guy up front flying the airplane has his pilot's license that shows they are capable of doing so safely.
When you are restricted from driving on a public road due to lack of a license that is society actively accusing you of being a danger to everyone else. The issue you are trying to compare this to are people being on a no-fly list that don't know why they are on this list and no one will tell them.
That's the main difference, the accusation. If the police were confiscating driver's licenses from people and forcing them to walk instead of driving without explanation, then that would be the same thing.
Now, if you have a history of attempting to bring down airplanes while in flight while you were on board, then they could rightfully restrict you from entering any other planes. At least in that case there's the accusation.
But I don't understand your thought of being restricted without trial as a strange concept. It's done all the time. Try to enter a restricted government building or a military base without permission and see how far you get. Even better, enter a stranger's house and see what happens. There are numerous restrictions in a free society that in essence helps maintain that freedom. Assuming that these restrictions are placed equally on everyone then that person next to you is restricted from doing things to you that you won't like just as much as you are restricted from doing them to him.
Of course, these restrictions can get oppressive and abusive if allowed to get out of hand.
