1. Because most people fail a lot in a lot of things.

2. Because failure often doesn't depend on you, and extremely often is at least partially dependent on external factors and context.

3. Because it's not that useful (psychologically) as opposed to other engagement approahces.

4. Because it can and will be misused to punish those who are disfavorable to the punishing establishment.

and last but not least:

5. Because the social systems which need to be in place in order to punish failure, and the ethos necessary for the punishers and for legitimization of the punishers' concrete acts, are themselves repressive to the general populace and make life a worse experience for everyone.

>It's inhumane to oversee a system with the capability to feed and house its entire population and refuse to do so for procedural reasons. (Welfare gap, Section 8 waiting lists)

>The system does not dole out failure meritocratically, therefore the existence of a total failure state will mean earnest and reasonably industrious individuals will still fail by chance alone. (Rust belt)

>The official sanctioning of a failure state is the impetus for a black market safety net, where failure is precluded at the cost of rule of law. (Drug-dealing, prostitution, gang-controlled ghettoes)

It's a hole in the ship's hull.

If you do, it shouldn't be:

>Failure shouln't be hunger and homelessness...

What is failure?

Is it failure to deliver some social good, even if your financial costs exceed your income?

The system needs a reset.

Would you rather optimize for people succeeding or optimize for people not failing? They are not the same thing.