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.
community wealth - 1 house. And it will not be the only one.
"If's" aren't gonna change that.
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?
It's the job they accepted to do and are paid for (at least in our society), so it's not slavery.
You ignore the loss incurred by the fire fighters. Their time, risk and labour is not free and they could have been doing something else.
Perhaps the home owner could have agreed to give a portion of the house as payment to the fire fighters? Then there would still be a house and the fire fighters would have been compensated for their labour. A free market trade, a negotiation, a voluntary act.
What we are discussing is paying $75 per year for fire protection, which those who lost their home refused to do. Therefore, the fire fighters have not been paid in this case.
The alternative of the fire fighters being paid via taxation is just treating
everyone else as slaves; forcing people to labour, in order to extract wealth from them, is slavery.