This book is a series of questions that students should consider about political life (which is to say life where it intersects with other people), and some reflections that are intended to encourage the reader to think about answers. It does not answer its own questions - that would defeat the purpose of generating thought. The discussions that follow each question include some basic information on the ways that political thinkers and philosophers of the past have approached the question. As such, it is an excellent teaching-tool for Intellectual History, Political Science, or Philosophy.
The questions are arranged into categories (such as "Estrangement and Unity," "Inequality and Equality," and "Historical Change"), and the questions in each section proceed from the basic ("Are Human Beings Unequal in Essence?") to the specific ("If All Conventional Inequalities Were Abolished, Could Liberty Survive?"). The chapters are written so as to avoid allowing the author's biases to come through - his goal is to encourage students to draw their own conclusions, and hopefully discuss and debate them with one another.
Nevertheless, the book is far from comprehensive, and leans toward a standard "canon" approach to (Western) Intellectual History. Thus the index includes entries for Thomas Aquinas, Karl Marx, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, but none for Proudhon, Thoreau, Gandhi, Sorel, LaVey, or Mao. Hitler is mentioned only three times as a sort of bug-a-boo, without attempting to engage his philosophy, and Stalin and Mussolini (by far the more theoretical writer) aren't engaged at all.
In short, this book is fine at what it attempts to do: give students a very basic grounding in intellectual discussion on the human condition and offer them some tools in developing their own ideas. This does not make it adequate for anyone wishing to understand political philosophy at a deeper level; even for those philosophers which are mentioned, more digging is necessary to achieve real comprehension. This book alone will get you through most coffee-house or cocktail-party discussions of political philosophy, but it won't get you to the point of being able to write a good research paper.