That's such an extreme reductio ad absurdum that you could use it on anything. If you have no obligation toward others because "you do not have to set yourself on fire to keep others warm", therefore, you may argue that "You do not have feed your baby once they're born even when you have plenty of food, and it's fine to let them die".
Most people that say we have an obligation toward others think that people ought to help others at least until it unduly burdens themselves. That undue burden interpretation might vary between society and culture but death or severe burn is generally agreed on as an undue burden to severe to ask of anyone to give someone else a paltry amount of warmth.
There are many intersecting values in life. One might say that no one has any right to use violence toward others as that's usurping other people's self-autonomy rights, but that could also be taken to the extreme that you have no right to defend yourself when others are about to kill you. Afterall, there are no exceptions allowed! Only extreme positions!
Saying that having obligation to pay back to the society that has given us the infrastructure to be successful before we were even born is the same as having to kill ourselves just to give minute comfort to someone else, makes no sense. No. Be a person that help others as much as they could without sacrificing your very life for it. The more you do that, the better of a person you are. Kindness is a virtue. You could even still maintain some wealth and still help others.
RE: The Social Democratic Case Against Anarchism