Why is your scenario more realistic than the ones I suggested? If we were to automate all work so the only people who had to work were the ones running the mac

Why is your scenario more realistic than the ones I suggested? If we were to automate all work so the only people who had to work were the ones running the machines, those people would effectively be the state. Everyone else would depend on those people. They would be untouchable, if for no other reason than that, if they were eliminated, the machines would fall into disrepair, and everyone who depended on them would die. It would be like a future version of MAD: kill the machine keepers, and everyone dies--except not MAD, because the machine keepers would have no need for everyone else. So it would be more like a future where only one nation had nuclear weapons, and they were second-strike capable: they can freely eliminate their enemies without repercussion, because anyone who attacks them is guaranteed to be destroyed by nuclear weapons. The only ways, then, to keep those people maintaining the machines would be altruism or threat of violence. Altruism isn't reliable, and what good is threat of violence if they can program the machines to protect them and eliminate their enemies? So it seems to me that the only hope is for the machinekeeping to be as widely distributed as possible. Maybe 3D printers will lead to self-replicating machines and a world where everyone is a machinekeeper. But I have serious doubts, because I don't see how even a self-replicating 3D printer could cover the whole chain of gathering and processing raw materials. I could imagine a distant future where all the natural mines are exhausted, and fortresses are built around old landfills, the only remaining source of raw materials for the machines. Not in our lifetimes, though! :D