There are a number of flaws with this argument.
1) Greece has been in and out of default many times in the past few hundred years, most of them before the advent of the modern liberal democratic social welfare states that are now (more or less) the norm throughout Western and Northern Europe.
2) Certain countries that provide nowhere near the same level of benefits to citizens are in nearly as much trouble, but aren't actually in risk of outright default because its currency underpins too many extremely important industries (air travel, petroleum).
3) Many other countries that do have a similar nature to Greece are also in a lot of trouble, but aren't in imminent risk of default, which says that one does not necessarily lead to the other.
At any rate, you chose to focus on an aside of the original post: that the European preference for both higher taxes and more comprehensive social benefits was preferable. Regardless of whether it is preferable, the initial thrust of the comment still holds: which was that it was morally questionable to seek to buy products outside one's home market and then not declare it on importation, allowing oneself to take advantage of those comprehensive benefits without paying the full cost, while your fellow citizens do.
If that many Europeans really feel that their tax burdens truly are too high, and that comprehensive social benefits are not as important as inexpensive consumer electronics (or that social welfare states are not sustainable in the long-term) should do something about this through their respective electoral systems before resorting to complaining to the CEO of an American computer company about tax and import policies he has no control over (although he would appear to have superior knowledge of compared to some residents of those countries, which is also amusing).
Does that not seem reasonable?
