I don't disagree about the what you are saying about the first generation of ASIC miners, but I'm trying to look a few generations out when the machines could potentially cost millions to make and each take up even larger percentages of the mining share.
I personally don't think bitcoin's original intention was to create an oligarchy, and personally don't like oligarchies. I'm personally for more distributed and democratic forms of power.
i don't agree they will cost millions to make. and if they do, they will likely not be very profitable given the distribution. rewards will be very split by then, and the system re-adjusts difficulty levels to where this will probably be a losing race if you're dropping $5M+ on a mining asic. most people with that kind of funds will be working bitcoin exchanges and trading with algorithmic systems to capture value, since youd basically need to be an investment bank to have that type of capital to throw at mining.
the bitcoin model of cryptocurrencies creates pseudo-oligarchies by its early-adopter incentive policy. if you want to make a democratic form of power, you create a marxist even-allocation cryptocurrency where the allocation is entirely flat across users. you sign up for marx coin, you get 25 mxc, and you're done. which will never work, because that's not how people work. they want to be able to have the edge on something. i'd bet a lot of money that btc would never have taken off without its money supply growth structure that incentivized early adopters for their troubles. nobody would have given a shit.
the problem you have with wealth distribution and this money supply model is the same one i have. i agree it sucks, but it's better to take that up with human nature instead of bitcoin's design.