Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
Decentralize what can be decentralized. Only centralize what must be centralized, such as internet address space, and maybe approval of new versions of the software. If one were to make an elaborate protocol, it might even include several government- and privately owned identity providers, with strict checks and balances, and ultimately a market based approach to who is trusted and not. (Think ratings agencies and auditors checking the inner workings of the companies, publishing their reports about them, and the market deciding who they consider most trustworthy.)
In my mind, those are exactly the originators of all potential problems. I was already assuming the transactions were decentralized.
Even if you distribute the issuing rights to entities that are unlikely to be influenced, there is no way to guarantee that these rights won't in time consolidate in the States' hands.
This is exactly where the idea of using proof-of-work for both verification and issuing shines.
Well, unfortunately, the reliance on biometry or other unique property means that there must be some tie to the individual. Sure, it could be a one-way hashing function just to check that you're not the same person as somebody else, so you couldn't easily go back from hash to individual, but even so that ability to tie one person to a coin makes it only half-anonymous, like other *coin forks. (Say, somebody forcing you to use the biometry and hash to check if you did a particular transaction that somebody didn't like. Even an unbreakable hash doesn't protect you from that. You could only try to claim that it was a hash collission.)
You could use blind signatures to make untraceable transactions. This, of course, introduces another centralized point, but it's almost instantaneous. OpenTransactions would work just as well for this.
Coins will indeed accumulate to those who provide a useful service/product over time. Isn't that what we want? The slight inflation caused by population growth, an the fact that those who provide services also have expenses, will help prevent excessive hoarding. Saving is fine, but if one guy ends up with 99 percent of the currency, it might as well be his used underwear. Or he could be the king and declare it to be the fiat currency of the land. 
Let's call this currency FairCoin. Are two pizzas an adequate service product for 10,000 FC? Should they cost 2 FC? 2 million?
If the accumulation is rapid, how would it differ from Bitcoin? Much worse actually, since you can't be re-born, but you always have the opportunity to mine.
You have to be able to centrally dictate the price if you want the accumulation be as organic as you wish. That's why I gave Catastroika as an example. Even though those vouchers had value, they rapidly accumulated in mafia's hands. Imagine if they had no initial value.