The firemen didn't destroy anything - the fire did. The firemen didn't start the fire either.
The firemen are not slaves of foolish home owners. If home owners want them to labour on their behalf, using their equipment, then they should pay the firemen to do it.
Moreover, they should take steps to avoid their house burning down. Fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire buckets/blankets, not smoking in doors etc - all would reduce their premium. Not asking for people to pay for insurance creates a free rider problem - why should they invest in ways to prevent fires, when they can just call someone to put it out for 'free'?
Requesting insurance and/or subscriptions to service providers is hardly disorganised. It is voluntary and allows people to pay for what they need.
This is exactly one of the points I have a problem with.
Yes the fireman didn't destroy anything.
Do you know the term "non-assistance of a person in danger"?
There is a reason for it to exist.
If you watch the house burn over a $75, you have lost the worth of the house for your society.
You can claim they were stupid all that you want, the work this house with built with is destroyed and lost.
You have to view voluntarism for its core - the rejection of using aggression to gain advantage. How things are arranged after force is removed is a matter of negotiation. While you (or I) can ponder endlessly about how things could work, it doesn't change the principle behind the philosophy and better ways will probably thought of by others anyway.
Despite my problems with it, I would like to see one state working like this to see if it can work out/what problems it has.
If the person had paid for people to put the fire out, the house wouldn't have been lost. The cost of the loss falls on the home owner too, who now no longer has a home, because they didn't pay a small fee.
You can't just demand people to do stuff for you - that's slavery. How about the loss of time to the fire fighters? How about their loss of life if they are killed while fighting the fire?