Imagine three villagers- Leopold, Franz, and Herbert.
Leopold is a farmer and owns a cow.
Franz is a businessman.
Herbert is a laborer.
Herbert and Franz have decided that Leopold should give up his cow to be used by society for the common good. Herbert wants to fatten and eat the cow so that everyone will have meat, as winter is coming. Franz wants to use the cow to clear and level paths to be used as roads, so that trade will increase the available food and lower food prices. Leopold thinks everyone could be satisfied without anyone having to surrender property. For instance, Franz could hire Leopold's cow to plow the roads (making some money), Leopold could hire Herbert to help (making some money), and Franz could trade and bring in the new foods (making some money). But Leopold is outvoted 2:1.
Leopold loses his cow and is angry.
Now, Herbert proposes fattening and eating the cow, but Leopold sees more value in the roads Franz proposes, so a vote of 2:1 sees the cow set to dragging out roads.
Herbert goes without meat and is angry.
After enough roads are created, Leopold decides that Herbert's proposal is now a better option than more roads. So the cow is made to eat and gain weight through a vote of 2:1.
Franz loses the extra business and is angry.
When they eat the cow, it is decided (in a 2:1 vote, naturally) that Franz, the main beneficiary of all this activity, should be forced to supply some vegetables and fruits at no cost for the feast. This leaves him doubly dissatisfied. Because his costs have gone up (through taxation), Franz raises his prices, which further dissatisfies Herbert, who is already unhappy that the meat is tough and stringy (and of course that the fruits and vegetables are only plantains and beets).
Herbert, who had no cost, is still unhappy because things weren't allocated as he saw fit.
Franz, who had no cost, is still unhappy because things weren't allocated as he saw fit.
And Leopold, who had almost all cost, is still unhappy because, despite losing his property and providing the foundation for every good thing that followed, received barely any compensation, and no appreciation.
No one is happy because there was no cooperation, no equal trade, and no "best" allocation of resources. Had things happened under a voluntary system (as is proved by research), perhaps no one would be ecstatic, but everyone would be satisfied, and no one would be angry.