I can understand this but doing so will just make the problem we have a bigger one.
But this would remove the power from the bishop and grant it to the individual priest. The priest would have to be obedient in everything but this.
Why can’t it be? Even today priests have a certain amount of liturgical liberty. The choice of the form of the penitential rite and Eucharistic Prayer is already up to the pastor or celebrant, for example, along with the choice of observing optional memorials, etc., etc. An indult such as been suggested grants nothing new in substance, only in degree. We may agree or disagree with the hierarchy about whether it would be prudent, or helpful to the faithful, but I can’t see how, if lawfully promulgated, it undercuts the authority of the local bishop in a new and different way.
But you really cannot compare a celebration of an optional memorial on a ferial day, or the use of whatever canon or penitential rite, to the actual celebration of an entirely different version of the Mass. Unlike celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin, (which, for some odd reason is hardly done at all though it would be a great solution to a lot of problems,) celebrating the Pian Mass is celebrating a rite that is not the normative rite of the Latin Church. Priests have to be in Communion with their Bishop, and if the will of the Bishop is to have the Novus Ordo be the standard and only allow the Tridentine in very certain circumstances, then going around the Bishop is turning the hierarchical structure, the divinely ordered structure of the Church, on its head.
Why? The former are currently existing legitimate liturgical options; the later would become a legitimate liturgical option if the “universal indult” were promulgated.
This is entirely true, but if the indult were promulgated then priests making use of it wouldn’t be “going around the Bishop” in any way. Or is the Holy See not competent to permit this?
I agree.
Do you mean to imply that assisting at the '62 Mass, even under the current indult, is morally questionable?
Of course not. I attend the Indult Mass about three times a month. Attending an SSPX Chapel in my opinion is morally questionable though in my opinion. Why support people who stand outside the Church?
I am praying that it may be so. 
Actually, it has been the instruction the the Tridentine be widely available since the beginning, just some bishops have refused to do so. What I would really like to see is papal directive that the Latin Mass be made widely available in every diocese so that anyone wishing to attend the Tridentine Liturgy would be able to do so.
This would handcuff the bishop. It would make the bishop subject to the whims of his clergy.
I’m sorry, but this is not an argument, this is empty rhetoric. The authority that bishops possess to regulate the liturgy in their dioceses can vary, depending on the judgement of the Holy See. For example, the indult of '88 authorized the bishops to permit celebrations of the '62 Mass; prior to that they would have had no authority to do so. Similarly, the Holy See has legislated that certain options are up to the legitimate discretion of the pastor or celebrant, such as the use of females as alter servers, the choice of the Eucharistic Prayer for a particular Mass, etc. The “universal indult” would grant further liberty to the pastor or celebrant, and I cannot conceive that is not within the competence of the Holy See to change this.
That would depend entirely on what rules were set forth in the hypothetical indult. It might be that the bishop and faithful could do nothing in such a case, as would be true today if a pastor wished to use only the second Eucharistic Prayer. If the Holy See grants the right to pastors or celebrants, then the case is closed. Do you believe that this is fundamentally unjust in some way? Or that it violates some inherent principle of ecclesiology? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?
It seems to be a valid question you raise, until you consider the changes between 1965-1970. The faithful had no say on the matter, and it would be no different today.
I don’t believe there is any special permission required to say a private Mass (which means without a congregation) according to the '62 missal.
There is already a great deal of flexibility available to a priest which the bishop does not (AFAIK) have the power to rescind. For example, since 1994 a bishop may allow females to serve at the altar but the choice as to whether or not to use them in a parish is up to the priest. A priest may use (within certain bounds) any canon he sees fit, any available penitential rite, an optional collect, etc. I don’t like that situation for the rite (waaaaay to many options, too little uniformity of worship), but it’s the state of affairs at present. None of these options are so large as to compare fairly with a choice of rite; I just wanted to point out that the Roman Rite offers many liturgical options for priests ‘independently’ from episcopal oversight.
“Not a good system but it works.” I agree that the historical model is one bishop per city. But if the present system was created because certain congregations were not having their needs met and you think it’s working, why not meet the needs of individuals who can’t even form congregations because their bishops aren’t generously responding to their needs as they should? As long as we’re tolerating not just three bishops but three (Catholic) PATRIARCHS of Antioch, I think we can manage some overlapping jurisdictions for the sake of those attached to the Pian missal.
I think there is no need for an indult in celebrating the TLM privately.
You don’t think that we’ve been “dumbed down” over that last few decades? I would think the facts speak for themselves: