The sovereign and the state – or general public – become two diametrically opposed biologies in Thacker’s discussion of biopolitics. Security for one is not security for all in this case. Whether certain classes are excluded from the privileged security is a case central to Thacker’s topic on bare life. Where law protects and doesn’t protect becomes a living condition felt in a variety of intensities across demographics. Whether architecture can play a supporting role in protection is not clear in Thacker’s essay, but I would suggest that any form of social or cultural intervention can positively affect those outside of the privileged circles. And while bare life is certainly a more critical notion to some over others, every member of society is considered in its realm. That people exist beyond bare life is a given consequence of capitalism and human nature to construct markets. But does architecture have to be different for those existing within the realm of bare life? Or would that be considered the ideal condition for all? Does sovereign architecture take on a drastically different form for the purpose of supporting life in a better way? Or does bare life architecture do just as good a job?