Efficient or inefficient Nazis?
The idea is: what is better, an efficient Nazi, or an inefficient Nazi?
See, we're assuming here that the whole Nazi thing is bad, that is, it is a bad ideology that we don't want promulgated in the world.
So an efficient Nazi would be bad, because s/he would just be that much better at achieving the Nazi agenda.
But I have been around thoughtful people (actually, Buddhists) who would argue that the efficient Nazi is a good thing. According to their idea, the efficient Nazi has some inherent spiritual advantage over the inefficient ones which makes her/him efficient. And that efficiency means that the efficient Nazi is in a position to work for change from within.
So, according to this idea, an efficient Nazi is actually better than an inefficient one, simply because the efficiency itself will work toward purging Naziism of its evil.
Well, I don't think I buy it. You can have short-term efficiency and long-term efficiency. The WWII Nazis were effective in the short-term at exterminating Jews, Gypsies, communists, anarchists and gays. But their efficiency in exterminating Jews and Gypsies didn't last much beyond 1945 (although the other groups continued to be jailed and criminalized well into the post-war era). So the long-term efficiency of the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews has not absolutely succeeded. So what did we get from it? A lot of misery and evil, with Jews being killed and displaced. Wouldn't it have been better in the long and short run to have had incompetent Nazis running the Third Reich, so as to minimize the damage they were doing?
Why one does things matters. But what one does also matters. Sometimes the why and the what can even be diametrically opposed. Imagine a member of the Nazi party who is, let us say, spiritually enlightened, who because of his talents and abilities gets promoted to head Jew-exterminator for his region. He's still exterminating Jews, which is a bad thing. I would also argue that, no matter how talented and able he is, he's got this problem of having a bad ideology: he is a Nazi. So his enlightenment isn't as good as it could be.
Brief digression designed to annoy people: we could turn this inside out and say that Americans, although living in a country with a good political system, are evil because their government is doing evil things abroad for the sake of hegemony over territories that can benefit the powerful in America.
So: piano teachers. We piano teachers in 2005 are participating in the tail end of a musical training system that has evolved...well, pretty much since human culture existed and music was taught: say, for about 80,000 years now, to be conservative about it. But it's not a perfect system, and the question is: is it good for the world? We can break this question down: is it good for the student? is it good for the teacher? is it good for music? is it good for society?
1) Is it good for the student?
It can be, if the student enjoys it. Forcing students to learn against their will, which happens with everybody to some degree, can cause emotional damage. But sometimes you have to force people to do things they don't want to do, for their own good and for other people's good.
2) Is it good for the teacher?
Teaching music is good for a teacher because it is a way to make money by doing what the teacher (presumably) loves to do.
3)Is it good for music?
Here I am not so sure. The best music in my opinion is that which is discovered by the musician. In a perfect world of musicians, teaching would be rare, and would be almost entirely collaborative (because every musician would be equally skilled). So these huge systems of hierarchical "lessons" which get instituted and integrated into society for reasons of status and "bauble flaunting" would not exist; instead, musicians would spend all day making music as much or as little as they wanted to, and occasionally two or more musicians would bump into each other and have a conversation, make some music (maybe) and (maybe again) might even exchange tips and ideas on how to improve their music making. Well, that ain't gonna happen any time soon. And if it did, I'd be out of a job.
4) Is it good for society?
It's better for society to have music teachers than not to have them, I think. The problems with music teaching as it exists are in my opinion directly related to problems in society: there are too many people and so people's lives are devalued; because of there being too many people, things that should be anomalies or blips in a healthy society, like having two or three people in a hunter-gatherer band that only wanted to sit around and twiddle with their musical intstruments instead of running around with spears trying to impress girls by hunting for food or whatever, get magnified into huge institutions that are kind of dysfunctional. Speaking Kantian-ly, if we all sat around twiddling our musical instruments, neglecting our hunting skills, there wouldn't be much food to eat.
I guess society as it is now is benefitted by having music teachers, and the concomitant pressures that force people to enroll their children in music lessons. There is a lot to be said for accountants and CEOs and nurses who have had some piano lessons: at the very least, it gives them some common ground with the instrument twiddlers and takes them out of their accountant/CEO/nurse mindset for a while, so that they have that much broader a perspective on life and on instrument twiddlers.
But piano teachers are still efficient Nazis, because we at some level are forcing students to learn who sometimes don't feel like learning. So what is to be done? Be the best piano teacher we can be, with lots of love and compassion? Or abolish piano teaching?
Well, I think the former. Just don't ask me to substitute the word "Nazi" for "piano teacher" in the above paragraph. Because then I might see an unpleasant truth with no apparent solution about my function on this planet.

