I understand the sentiment, and often feel this way too, but I think it's reductive to assume the answer is to let large companies/investors to fail.

Ideally, if we ensure adequate diversity in the market, then having companies default makes sense -- then one company going under won't trigger a string of defaults that can cripple a sector of the economy.

But when we let businesses concentrate effort or corner markets, then there can be catastrophic consequences to the economy when these large entities go belly up. Efforts should be put in place to mitigate these issues.

Ultimately, I think the pragmatic approach is to assess defaulting on debt on a case-by-case basis. I'd prefer if a panel of economists across the ideological spectrum came to a consensus for each case based on the latest understanding of the market, but I know it's more likely going to be politicians choosing the argument that best fits their worldview.