Another bad idea of Roddenberry's was the no pockets in the future idea.
I like the idea one of the board members here came up with a few years back, that their pants were "smart pants." If you needed a pocked, the pants would manifest however many you needed and in any size and location. like when Geordi LaForge need a small pocket to conceal a small phaser (to assassinate a Klingon), his clothes made a pocket, after he pulled out the phaser the pocket would in time disappeared.
King Daniel wrote:
Personally, I find the FJ symbol more aesthetically pleasing, showing the locations of the Federation Membership, like the field of stars in the American flag I would imagine that it would change with each new member. The later "official" flag/seal is (as I understand it) simply a random spread of stars that represents nothing in particular. While the two Humanoid profiles looking outward might upset some of the Federations species, the two olive branches would do the same, being so Human-centric a symbol.
But there are numerous examples of money's existence too. So what do you do?
Accept that canon is self-contradictory and move on?
I would say, look at the number of occurrences.
Consider the letter R.
Somewhat like Picard's single overt statement that money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century, during TOS there is a single overt reference to James Kirk's middle name beginning with the letter R. This comes to us via the tomb stone created by Gary Mitchell.
That's the only time we see the middle initiial R. Kirk himself never refers to his middle initial being anything other than a T, his official records consistently use a T, and when Kirk is referred to in other series, his middle initial is a T. Eventual we are provided with the middle name Tiberius.
In-universe, it unclear why Mitchell would use an R.
So, is this an example of a self-contradiction? No, it's one character making a single overt reference that doesn't fit with a large number of other references. And it's the same with the money references, while we do get money; don't use, don't need, don't carry
- only once is there a overt statement that "money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century."
Is Picard's statement a self-contradiction? No.
If the yes and no money references were basically a balanced mixed, then that would be a self-contradiction, one line of dialog isn't.