Some assets like gold or Bitcoin are much harder to create, and so there is no indefinite, limitless increase in supply. This allows them to function better as stores of value than dollars.
See hyperinflation to better understand why some people fear government spending deficits and the spiral of money creation that follows: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hyperinflation.asp
Ex: Facebook is the most valuable social network on the internet. Forking FB's source code and starting my own social network does not mean anyone will use it. FB is valuable because it works, and because users are there.
Most people don't really get that Bitcoin is unique in this regard. Literally every other coin has less credibility and more intervention and a shorter history. That's why BTC will be more valuable.
I'm pretty sure it's not the government that creates most of the money. It's mostly the banks right? When you borrow money, they don't need to go to the government to create the money for that loan in your account.
And this is a mostly a good thing. I know a lot of people think it's not, but what it really does is democratise borrowing. Your ability to borrow money is mostly only limited to your own ability to make regular payments.
A slight inflation also incentivises people to borrow and invest, so it's often good for economic growth.
Maybe it won't be so good in the future when the population and economy starts to shrink consistently. But I'm not convinced that cryptocurrencies is the answer there either.
The power to create money is indeed useful at times. However, there are problems with it that eventually arise over time.
Cryptocurrencies/blockchains simply provide infrastructure outside the control of the government or any single entity. The applications we decide to use with it is ultimately up to us.