You seem to suggest that orthodoxy of something inevitably implies monopoly on the horizons of interpretations possible on that particular something. That is a stretch. Orthodoxy usually means just the established way of understanding or doing something [that can degenerate into a monopoly, I grant you, but not necessarily]. Not that the common way of doing things is right, just that you have to acknowledge and start with it to be able to change it. Without understanding what the orthodoxy or tradition on something is how could you even begin to think and rebel against it?
Orthodoxy makes discourse and communication possible. Every word has its orthodoxy of meanings and connotations. You wouldn't be able to make yourself understood to your readers without starting from a common, established way of writing, reading and interpreting your text. You wouldn't even be able to think without established meanings of words. In order to be able to challenge the orthodoxy of some concept for example you have to rely in your affirmations on the orthodoxy of other concepts. Orthodoxy is the foundation on which liberty from some orthodoxies is possible.
One should fight any monopolistic orthodoxy for freedom and liberty but that fight can only be possible by using as weapons [of thinking] non-monopolistic orthodoxies [words]. Monopoly is the true enemy of liberty, orthodoxy is the ground on which both monopoly and liberty are possible.