Our current government is not sustainable

This is my first debate and I have never taken any formal classes on philosophy, economics, or logic & reasoning. Part of the problem here would be lack of clarification regarding "government" and "sustainable". Since no specification is provided by Pro I will simply argue based on the literal interpretation of the topic. Here is my opening statement that argues for continued sustainability of our government based on the following premises:1. In the U. S. , our current form of government is that of a Federal Republic, which can be defined as "a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives. " (1)2. In order for our government to function, it requires the political backing of it's component parts, some form of funding that can adequately provide for spending, and sufficient military forces to prevent forced takeover from other governments. 3. The Federal Republic governmental system is a separate system from the Mixed Economy that our market operates on.4. The state of the economy is in part relevant in determining sustainability of our government, but does not hold a definitive influence over it. Now I will support my premises with explanation.1: U. S. government is often labeled as Democratic, but this is a generalization of the truth. In a pure democracy power is exercised directly by the people, and not through elected representatives. (2) In our government we elect representatives such as Senators, President, and members of the House of Representatives. Power is exercised through these representatives when they make legislative decisions in congress, executive military decisions in the White House, and judicial revisions in the Supreme Court.2: A government without the aforementioned parts holds little to no power of any matters in the area it claims to govern. What gives our government power is the collective effort of elected representatives, or in other words the political backing of it's constituents. If states chose to withdraw membership in the U. S. , like we saw in the civil war, then the government holds no legislative power in that area. Our current government employs paid workers in order to carry out it's functions. Police, Public Education, Welfare Programs, Social Security, politicians who hold office, secretaries who work for said politicians, etc. Because these people are paid for their work some type of funding must be provided to the government in order for it compensate. In this discussion I will use the term funding to refer to currency, commodities, or any other thing that is traded as payment. Notice how I don't implicitly say that government needs U. S. dollars or fiat currency to operate. As long as our government has something that others are willing to accept as payment then it can be considered funding in this sense. Lastly it would be necessary for a government to have adequate means of protecting it's property and people from other parties intent on stealing or taking by force what is not theirs. I think we can agree that if a nation with a strong military wanted to stake claims to another nation's resources that did not posses the means of defending itself that the victim nation's government would be replaced with the invading government or at least rendered ineffective by puppet politicians.3: It is often confused by many that a democratic government inherently means a capitalistic economy, but the nature of government does not always implicitly state the nature of economy. For example, China is considered a communist country but holds somewhat of a mixed economy. Like most modern countries there is a limited amount of free trade and limited amounts of regulation from government. Likewise it can be said that a Federal Republic does not hold a purely capitalistic economy. There is no absolutely free trade in America. The government does regulate things and has agencies designed to do so. i. e. Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, etc. 4: Since it can be said that nature of government and the nature of economy have no absolute correlation AND that the function of a government relies upon the 3 mentioned components then it can also be said that failure of the capitalistic funding component does not immediately spell out doom for the governmental system. The economic system of our mixed economy may be unsustainable and prone to failure due to it's reliance on fiat currency and increasing federal deficit, but in the event that the economy crashes and is unable to recover without essential reform it would not follow that our governmental system of a Federal Republic would fall with it. Our current government operates on funding that is borrowed from the Federal Reserve and collected from it's tax payers in the form of the U. S. Dollar. The U. S. Dollar is in fact a fiat currency, meaning that it holds no intrinsic value and only asserts it's value through it's widespread and standardized use. If our currency no longer holds any value due to it's extreme inflation and rejection by other nations then it would only mean that the U. S. Dollar is no longer accepted as valid payment. This is not to say that the U. S. Dollar is the ONLY payment method available. Long before the U. S. Dollar villagers traded commodities like animals, food products, services, and other things that served a purpose in their continued existance. Eventually trading evolved into payment using gold. Gold has little intrinsic value other than it's rarity and beauty in color. It is said that rarity does not imply intrinsic value. Purple colored poop is rare but that doesn't mean anyone wants it. Never the less it served as a useful tool for traders because it became a standard to which you could trade against. In fact this system is often called "the gold standard". My main point here is that life goes on without the dollar because our governmental system has three supporting beams that hold it in place. The problem child here being that the funding beam is currently composed of a capitalistic mixed economy. Should this economy fail, it might mean switching to a new currency, perhaps one that is backed by Gold, Energy, or another commodity with intrinsic value. It could also mean redefining the economic practives by changing standards like Gross Domestic Product and removing poor trading practices. This new trading could conform to any number of economic systems, but the nations using them must still be governed in order to define legislation, provide for the common defense, and ensure it's continued support by it's constituents. Also, the current lifestyle lead by Americans does not have to be lead in the same way to be governed using the same system. A downsized lifestyle may be necesarry in a new economy. As I have explained before an economic system has no immediate bearing on the nature of a governmental system because they don't necessarily govern the same things. Government aims to control the laws, military actions, and allocation of it's natural resources. Economic systems control the trade and availability of products made from natural resources, services, and raw resources. These two systems are not completely dependent on each other all the time. While I have no doubt in my mind that the event of the economy failing and the U. S. dollar becoming useless would pose a major disruption to the Federal Republic system, I fail to see where it would mean the end of our current governmental system. (1) . https://www.cia.gov...(2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...