About the only aspects I can see as positive are the (relatively) egalitarian relationships between the sexes, the (relative) religious tolerance, the idea of keeping laws few and simple so that all could understand, and elected leadership. It sounds closer to China during Mao's cultural revolution than anyplace I'd want to live in.

There's even slavery-prisoners of war and people who have violated any of the republic's tyrannical laws. Where people live and their work is chosen by the state there's no private ownership, no privacy, internal passports, sexual mores are legally enforced. But like Plato's ideal republic it's one where lives are very tightly controlled. Utopia is a republic that elects it's leaders. I mean c'mon, the slaves' chains are made of gold, children use jewels as playthings? Even the surname of the narrator, Raphael Hythloday, means 'spreader of nonsense.' Anyone really think More meant this all seriously? It's certainly not my ideal. I think it's more satire, more fanfic of Plato's Republic, than serious prescription. I can't imagine from all I know of the man that what he presents is his ideal. And it's a state without lawyers imagined by a man for whom that was his profession. There's equality between the sexes (sorta), divorce, married and women priests, sanctioned euthanasia and religious tolerance (sorta). Moreover, this ideal state seems notably radical for a man who was famously a very orthodox Catholic. Given not just the name of no place but things like the explanation of why the island is not reachable (someone coughed when the location was announced) I suspect the later. The word 'utopia' was coined by More for his book from Greek for 'no' and 'place.' There's some controversy as to whether this work is meant as serious or satire.

Thomas more 1516