I can state this more concisely: It is not incongruous to both 1. ask for the rules of the game to be changed such that we would all move from a sub-optimal N

I can state this more concisely: It is not incongruous to both 1. ask for the rules of the game to be changed such that we would all move from a sub-optimal Nash equilibrium to a better Nash equilibrium 2. Continue to personally defect and maintain the current sub-optimal Nash equilibrium while calling for the _game_ to be changed such that the sub-optimal Nash equilibrium no longer exists. Unilaterally cooperating results in losing (and evolutionary selection effects might result in all such do-gooders being eliminated). Note that this is not possible in a Prisoner's dilemma because the point of trying to change Patent law (or change Tax law) is akin to changing the game from a Prisoner's dilemma to something else. I.E. The advocated course of action is _outside_ the game.