I've often considered that his paradox lays in the fact that he advocates for intolerance towards those who advocate intolerance. But in practice it needn't be

I've often considered that his paradox lays in the fact that he advocates for intolerance towards those who advocate intolerance. But in practice it needn't be a paradox, in practice, would it? In the same way that we grant the state a monopoly on violence, we could grant the state a monopoly on intolerance. And we do, here in Canada, by way of hate speech laws and charter protections for various protected aspects of persons. The state is intolerant of intolerance, and it works pretty ok.