Logic behind onside kick and muff punt rules

[Whiting89]

During bears packers Chris Collinsworth said the muff punt rule makes sense as there is no line of defense after the punt returner. However for the onside kick rule what is the logic behind not allowing the kicking team not being able to advance it?

and please no we are officials we just enforce the rules we don’t the reasoning behind the rules.

[JustRules]

In this case I'm not sure what the reasoning is for not allowing a kicking team member to advance a kick. The only exception is a scrimmage kick recovered by the kicking team behind the neutral zone. I've never heard the logic of there being no defense to stop them on a punt (scrimmage kick). I don't see that logic because there's no defense to stop them on a sack/fumble either.

My assumption is it's related to intentionally giving up team possession by way of a scrimmage kick or free kick. It could also be to simplify the rules to not allow advancement if A, B or C exist but allow it if D, E or F exist.

What would be your cut off for advance a free kick you define as an onside kick? 10-20 yards beyond the free kick line? What if it's a pooch kick they recover at the 20? Should the kicking team be able to advance that kick? Would you argue that a kicking team should be able to advance any free kick they recover? Why not scrimmage kicks?

Ultimately the best answer is because it's always been the rule. But that's not the answer you want.