That's a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.

Welcome to social contract theory.

the "paradox" as the user above pointed out, simply isn't a paradox at all:

"A" = "not A" is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.

and that's all that the "paradox" really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.

it boils down to "you can't have it both ways", and that is the intended meaning.

i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a "paradox" rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.

in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.

there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it's simply a logical conclusion.

it's kind of like the whole misunderstanding of "theory" vs "hypothesis" leading to the now-common "evolution is just a theory" among religious fundamentalists.

"it's just a theory" is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there's nothing hypothetical about it.

in a similar vein, the "paradox" is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.

and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word "paradox" they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.

and that assumption of "paradox = dilemma" is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.

popper called the conclusion "paradoxical", which isn't the same as something being an actual paradox.

i really wish they'd used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer...