Answer

I don’t think this is connected to laws of statehood. Why should it be different in a state? Here we’re dealing with danger to individuals, and it doesn’t matter who rules the state. If one wanted to stretch it, one could say that there is a concern that if they do not permit it, then in another case where there really is danger to life, people will be unnecessarily stringent, and therefore there is room to be lenient in every case. But if so, the sages from the Talmud onward should already have taken that into account.
 
It is true that nowadays this would not be accepted by the broader public, and there is room to view this like the constraint of living among gentiles.
 
I would note that in the topic of extinguishing a fire on the Sabbath there is a lot to analyze. For example, why does it matter if there is only a rabbinic prohibition against extinguishing? It is rabbinic because this is a case of an act not needed for its own productive result — extinguishing where one does not need the charcoal. But would I really violate only a rabbinic prohibition in order to save all my property? Similar to what Tosafot wrote in Sabbath 4a, that if they tell him not to remove the bread, he will not listen to them.
————————————–
Questioner:
If it won’t be accepted by the public — then that is like living among gentiles, where there is a real danger to life.
If there were a fire in your house in old Ashkenaz, the only way to save your life would be to flee (wooden houses and open fire for cooking and heating — the winter house…).
 
Why does this belong to laws of statehood? Because there is a difference between a village burning and a state going up in flames (even if we saved everyone… in the submarines that Bibi bought).
 
It seems to me that this past Sabbath the "dry" Jewish law was stretched beyond all measure… ostensibly without basis (people evacuated by car over long distances — not only in order to save themselves from death — and more.

————————————
Rabbi:
Come on… a state is burning? Are you sure we live in the same place? There is no difference at all between the fires that happened here and a fire in a single house (a villa in the jungle). Here too it was just several houses. So what?
By the way, I also don’t understand why all the families are compensated for the house that burned down. What difference does it make whether hundreds of houses burned or one? Each family has one house that burned, and when it is an isolated family nobody compensates them (unless they have insurance). It is the same hysteria that causes people to feel that a state is burning.

————————————
Questioner:
Meaning, if you don’t deal with the fire, the matter will get out of control and the damage will be unbearable for the state. Can you imagine all the Carmel neighborhoods burned down in a properly run state (assuming they would not extinguish on the Sabbath because there is no danger to life)?
 
Any fire that is the result of terror, the state compensates for, and rightly so (just as when they throw a stone in Judea and Samaria and break a windshield), and if it is not terror, apparently whoever has no insurance will take the hit… unless the politicians panic….

————————————-
Rabbi:
It is a collection of unbearable damages to each individual citizen. I still do not see a difference.
By the way, not only is it forbidden to extinguish, it is even forbidden to save property, aside from food for three Sabbath meals, clothing for that day, and sacred books (lest a person become frantic over his property and extinguish the fire).