I'm skeptical of the notion that regulation "slowly and surely just inches forward" naturally. Maybe you could explain a bit?
Your entire argument hinges on slippery slope fallacy. Implementation of a thing in a restricted doesn't necessarily lead to an unrestricted implementation of it.
Nobody is saying "you are too stupid to decide fire safety for yourself." We are saying "it is cheaper (more efficient) to have specialists decide fire safety guidelines and implement them universally, than it is to guarantee equal knowledge of fire safety for all citizens."
Because, a free market isn't free if it's unfair. Your libertarian argument requires perfect fairness, or it's immoral. And obviously, perfect fairness in a free market system is... a high barrier to cross.
So, regulation. Efficient, fair. Flawed, but not broken, and not nearly as exploitable as "the free market."
By the way - what happened before the fire safety regulations? People died, horribly, tragically. If you believe they deserved to die because they didn't educate themselves on fire safety, your expectations are far too high. Do you know how planes, electricity, your car, roads, clean water, sewer treatment, food safety (at the source, not cooking), radiological and chemical safety systems work? Do you know how to use a tomahawk missile to enforce your sovereign borders? No? Maybe you don't deserve the protections they offer then.
If you take your line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you end up in a society without any personal freedom or choice.
The problem isn't that fire escapes are bad. It's that regulation slowly and surely just inches forward, consuming everything in its path.
If your first assumption about people is that they are too stupid to make choices for themselves, the natural conclusion is despotism. Do you think you're too stupid to make decisions yourself as well?
Would you be fine with someone telling you that maybe you are too stupid to have kids? Or maybe too stupid to drive a car? Or too stupid to decide what profession you want in life (you would write terrible code, so it's in the public interest that you become a janitor where your stupidity can't hurt anyone else)? Or maybe you're so stupid that we should just take you off the street?
OR, maybe, just maybe, you and the market should decide these things for yourself.
Edit: In regard to the fire fighter thing. Individuals could just pay insurance for fire protection. It naturally would be cheaper in places with fire escapes. There's no reason why public services like fire fighters or ambulances have to be public, they would probably just function more efficiently as private entities.