So we're on the same page regarding the definition, then.
My point, and I'm sure we're on the same page here, is that such distortions are necessary. Market economies shouldn't be some kind of religion or ideal or aspiration. It's a tool. There are limited resources and we have to come up with some kind of system to disburse them. The first job should be to maintain the civilization in its current form, or there's no point. Might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have a revolution or get conquered, or die out, or whatever and start over. The second job should be to reflect whatever values the civilization collectively holds. So if a society doesn't value human life relatively speaking, have rules and regulations that reflect that, but make sure there are plenty of babies being born, whatever that takes.
Right now based on our rules and regulations, I'd argue we value allowing people to amass vast quantities of wealth over having some kind of equitable distribution. I don't see how that's sustainable, and since I believe job one is to maintain the civilization, something needs to be done to move that pendulum, otherwise we're going to cease to exist at some point (as a society, not as a species). I also believe we've become stratified, with measurable losses in upward mobility from one generation to the next. That's dangerous, IMO.
I believe these frictions are reflected in this thread - but everywhere really.
You keep telling me that no one is calling for the depositors to lose their money, but I just went to the first page of this thread and there alone are multiple posts calling for exactly that. It's repeated throughout the thread. I feel like you're gaslighting me when you claim something else. That's exactly what a lot of posters on here want. They want the depositors to lose their money above the uninsured amount.
It's my opinion that's not helpful to the system, but I also don't think it matters, because like you've said, they're going to be made whole whether people want that or not.