The biggest problem with this book is Levin discusses something that's a nonfundamental. "Utopianism" merely means setting up a hypothetical ideal. It isn't necessarily evil or nefarious in itself. One of the best philosophers, Ayn Rand, used a utopia (Atlantis in Atlas Shrugged). Meanwhile the worst philosopher, Immanuel Kant, didn't. By itself, utopianism really doesn't have much significance.
Also, there is a lot Levin gets incorrect. For example, his understanding of Hobbes' Leviathan is completely out of context. Hobbes did not believe what he called the "state of nature" was the natural state of people. Rather, it was just his name for people living together prior to anyone creating a man-made social structure. Hobbes also thought most people were benevolent and wanted happiness and success. The problem was, without a social structure to keep the peace, the few rotten apples would be able to put everyone in a position of having to take force into their own hands to protect themselves against looting, terror, physical abuse, etc. leading to a state of war of all against all where no one could be productive. Having a government that prevents people from disturbing the peace but pretty much lets them do anything else is his solution to this. Hobbes never wanted a totalitarian state with anyone delegating all of his rights to the government. All he wanted was for people to delegate to a government their right to use force (their "strength and power") to prevent disturbance of the peace and keep force under objective control.
Hobbes in fact is the father of individual rights. His prohibition on the government forcing subjects to hurt themselves or destroy their lives is the forerunner of John Locke's right to life. And Hobbes' statement that anything the government doesn't expressly forbid, the subjects can do is the forerunner of Locke's right to liberty. Hobbes' promotion of peaceful self-preservation as desirable human behavior, where people choose the things of value they want and pursue them while not interfering with others' abilities to do the same, is the forerunner of Locke's right to the pursuit of happiness.
It's curious that, while Hobbes and Locke were on generally the same path in wanting a limited government that protects individual rights by banning force, Levin treats them as some kind of opposites. While it's true that Locke sounds benevolent and friendly and Hobbes sounds tough and ominous, it's their substance, not style, that's important. Yet Levin seems to be snowed by the superficial differences in style between the two men and condemns one while praising the other for saying something that's substantively very similar.
Overall, I would say: you probably won't learn much that's very valuable from Ameritopia. Whether someone is benevolent or not depends on whether he supports individual rights, not whether he's "utopian". Save your money.
