This is how I see it: you can justify the lack of conflict and the lack of any real desperation on Voyager any way you like, but at the end of the day, the question has to be: if there is no conflict amongst the crew, if there is no desperation in Voyager's situation, then what, exactly, is it that distinguishes VOY from every other Star Trek series? And the answer, I think, is "not much."
What made TNG different from TOS?
What Made DS9 different for those two?
What made ENT different from the others that came before it?
TOS had a Russian & a Japanese man as part of the bridge crew. Guess what, no conflict.
TNG has a Klingon as a crew member, no conflict.
If you didn't get conflict from a Klingon, why would there be conflict from the Maquis, who were already Federation citizens? Even Sisko mentions in "The Maquis" how Federation citizens don't harm their own.
The point was: To reintergrate people that felt abandon by the Federation due to a treaty. Too show that both sides do get along for a greater good.
Why do you think they stated over & over again in every season about how Voyager was the most advanced starship in Starfleet to date? They told us all from the very beginning there wasn't going to be conflict or ongoing power supply issues.
Star Trek isn't about a dystopian future, it's about one were hope prevails. Even during the entire Dominion war and dealings with the Bajorians delt with Sisko's trials of hope & faith.