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.
I don't ignore it, I know they have to be paid for this, but we are discussing about the way to do so.
Btw: Their time was already spent in that example.
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.
Oh great. "I'm a medic. I see you are dieing, well that will be 1 million $ (/10 BTC :3) to help you. Decide fast!"
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.
Yes, because this payment model is awful there was a big loss.
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.
I disagree. While there are many bad things in states that can end up in a kind of slavery-state it's not the taxation itself.
If done right, it doesn't enslave anyone (my personal opinion).
When there is no choice to decline the services of the state, it is theft. If every bit of work you do - which you need to do to survive - results in stuff being taken from you, it is slavery. Sugar coat it all you like, but this is the reality of the situation.
The whole point of insurance and/or subscription models is that you pay a small fee in the expectation that you are unlikely to need their services. Not subscribing and then expecting to just pay your subs on the day is laughable - you will be given the choice of the market rate for fire fighters at short notice or accepting the alternatives.
Regarding their time - it wasn't spent already. They didn't have to risk their lives putting out a fire - they could just sit in their truck.
