I feel your comparison is apples and oranges, other than that the current structure of Bitcoin gives gain to early adopters, and early adopters / investors in a business potentially allows investors to have higher gains. However they are different systems.

Why can't the system exist just based on the incentive of the value that system brings? Why can't that be reward enough? The issue here is allocation of resources - to build and implement this structure and have it being adopted. The reason this is getting exposure is because businesses can make a profit, in a de-centralized Ponzi-scheme like structure - and with it being de-centralized giving it a huge amount of momentum and putting it to a holistic scale, where there can be lots/"unlimited" players perpetuating the system in different ways.

An alternative is the government implementing this system - and then why not the government (society as a whole) make those gains/rewards that occur? And I'd more imagine an international government than individual nations.

What I am trying to contrast it to is how it would look if everyone was already in this system, and then furthermore, if they were all brought into the system at once - having it mirror current resources and ownerships. This isn't easy to conceptualize either, as people's time is a resource - and what's the minimum value of a base unit of time?

Yes, giving reward speeds up how quickly the system will exist or seemingly be adopted by people, though it doesn't mean it's actually implemented in a secure and stable way. Its competitor is essentially money, so people who want to keep the status quo of money in place will be a very strong friction against Bitcoin. When people buy Bitcoin with real money, if they are the last ones, what they get from each Bitcoin will be less than what the early adopters do - which I feel is a very large disincentive for Bitcoin ever being fully adopted by everyone. And if 90% of people are now using Bitcoin for transactions, how much is real money actually worth? Those "late" adopters will not have places to spend that money, fewer and fewer, and so they end up absorbing the downside or rather they end up paying for the upside that current investors / early adopters are gaining. Is this wrong logic? If not, how is this fair? Simply saying "don't be the last!" isn't really an adequate response either. The value of real money won't decrease any time soon, though as a system similar to Bitcoin has higher adoption rate there will become a tipping point where people just won't accept real dollars in exchange for Bitcoin because they won't have as many places to spend it, it won't be as easily "liquidated."

The why is so you can create a system that doesn't punish or put "later adopters" at a disadvantage. If putting $1 in of current money into the system, and then the equivalent of $1 into the system 5 years from now gains you the same value, then that would be fair and balanced. There being a fixed amount of Bitcoin, that isn't structured to be immediately distributed to 100% of existing money, is a problem. It's currently structured to be a land grab, where land is a finite resource.

Perhaps I am missing some foundational understanding of how Bitcoin works and that is skewing my understanding and answers.