J.G. Ballard makes the same point, in the opposite direction: if we can't have both modern comforts and our hearts' desires, we may eventually give up on what we have in favor of what we want -- and may even be right to do so.

There will always be some who do. G.K. Chesterton spoke of the "rational and deliberate preference which will always to the end trouble the peace of the world, the rational and deliberate preference for a short life and a merry one." (_Napoleon of Notting Hill_, chapter 8.)

Theodore Dalrymple found that preference in many of the English homeless; he was surprised to find that homeless wandering "is not without its compensations," and sounds like he was half-convinced to turn vagrant himself -- but read the article, http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_oh_to_be.html. Dalrymple also detects this preference for adventure over security in some of the English underclass... and, more worrisomely, Chesterton -- who knew of what he spoke -- detected it in the Nazis.

In other words: if we value our prosperity and idleness -- or even if we value simpler, more obvious ideals like "not torturing" and "not trying to exterminate the Jews" -- we should probably do something to make life a little less dull for those who prefer something else over dullness.

I don't support Ballard's methods, to say the least (read a book or two of his and you'll see why not); but perhaps permitting Americans to fight as mercenaries abroad, and relaxing our self-defense laws at home, might be a good first step? Or making the military a better-paying and less bureaucratic place?