The phrase has its rhetorical uses. It can reasonably be applied to a
proposal that cannot succeed at the purpose for which it is being sold.
It may not be intended to fail by proponents who honestly think
the design can succeed, but don't understand the underlying principles
of the system on which they undertake to intervene.
That would include a bridge design that only takes it half-way across
the bay, or to fall the first time more than two vehicles drive onto it
at the same time.
It would include a race car with no accelerator, no brakes, no
steering, or no wheels.
It includes all campaign finance laws.
All of these may line a few people's pockets, but are exercises in
futility for the purposes of everyone else.
On 12/18/2010 11:24 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
we really need
to toss this "designed to fail" phrase out the window.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------