Veganism = Anarchism and vice versa
Disclaimer: i'm not trying to bash anyone here, just following logic and trying to be objective, i'm also totally convinced that when humanity is educated enough to not let themselves be farmed, veganism will become universal through the free market not influenced by government.
Are there exceptions to the NAP?
To talk about them separately, both are fundamentally based on the Non-Agression Principle, however in both cases most people proclaiming to be either anarchist or vegan make an exception to the rule (and ofcourse i'm not talking about self-defence, cause that's part of the rule.).
In case of most anarchists they extent the NAP to just humans and degrade animals to be nothing more then commodities (though often have conflicting thoughts when it comes to cruelty to animals in general, when it's visible).
In case of most vegans they extent the NAP to non-human animals, but violence against humans is perfectly ok and is propagated for (statism).
If you are consistent with the principles both ideologies are based on, you could use the words interchangeably.
How is this: 
different from this? 
*How is this a horrible act of statism: 
But this is not? 
etc.
Anarchists don't care if you cause harm to yourself as long as you don't do it to innocent others (without their legitimate consent i.e. a boxing match), it seems these vegans think about it similarly but then in the species sense, do to other humans whatever, but leave the animals out of it.
These non-vegan anarchists however degrade animals to commodities, but most of the time have conflicting thoughts when it happens in front of their face or when something cruel is done to a culturally differently perceived animal, like a dog or a cat for example.
In consistent logical sense neither the non-vegan anarchist nor statist vegan makes sense, but on the positive side in both cases it's at least a good start in an awareness and caring sense for a peaceful future.
I summarize both the term anarchist and vegan as a person behaving like this:
"Do not cause (intentional) harm (the least possible) to other innocent (to account for self-defence) sentient beings."
I think the point is made, human farming (statism) or animal farming, it's both wrong and unsustainable, i leave it at this for now, i love to hear your thoughts below.
The NAP can only be logically applied to human beings. We have no perception of the perceptions of other beings. If you find it logical to apply the NAP to other animals then why is it only logical to that extent? Why not continue the logic to apply to all lifeforms? Should we not eat plants either? Bacteria?
Perception has little to do with what is violence or aggression, that's objective, however the difference between a man and a cow is basically the same as the difference between a cow and a monkey, the only difference for our perception is that we can communicate more clearly with others of our species, but the same goes for the perception of the cow (ofcourse there is a lot more difference but that goes for the comparison of all species, it's beside the point we're arguing), the thing we have in common is the fact that we're all sentient individuals with a desire to be free and not to be harmed.
This is what plants don't have, they have the consciousness of a dreamless sleep.
However even if you want to argue plants are sentient (which they are not) then my summary of what kind of behaviour in my mind belongs to both a anarchist and vegan still holds true for a plant-based eater against slavery.
What i meant with that if the world went anarchist veganism would become universal through the free market, is because the truth always wins in the end. it perhaps won't have to do with morality or anything, but it will be because of the nutritional science and mostly because of the total unsustainability, unless we create a cheap way to grow muscle tissue in lab-like circumstances without the actual animals, though that would still come with the health issues, but heroin comes with health issues too.
Plants have developed very specific defense mechanisms to defend themselves from competition and preditors. We know human beings have preferences. This is why we are able to identify agression. However we have no way of knowing that any other life form has preference or if they are simply reflexive to external stimuli. I'm not saying we know, actually I'm specifically saying we don't
I think you can observe pretty easily that animals have their preferences, they know what's coming when they are sent to slaughter and do whatever they can to resist, they know love, hate and fear, they often have a better memory then humans.
Basically they should be treated similar to the mentally disabled, in terms of intercourse.
Ok, i'm not really in the mood to discuss whether or not it is right or wrong. But I would like you to explain to me how you think it is practical. Because humans just so happen to be omnivores. And there is no way you are going to get any significant portion of the population to agree with you. Vegans are an extreme minority, every vegan I know has eventually gone back to eating meat, some after being a vegan for 8+ years. I'm just curious how you expect this to be the case. The only way this could happen is if you were to enforce it.
I'm not going into why the term omnivore doesn't really mean anything, cause if we are basically every animal is.
I don't know about the "vegans" you know, but i doubt any true vegan (which is a state of mind, not a plant-based eater, that's just a consequence) would go back to paying people to enslave, rape and murder animals for their consumption.
But the rest you say, the same is said by ignorant statists about anarchy.
perhaps morality won't even be a part of it, which in the beginning is the case of a lot of eventual vegans by the way.
But the world will go plant based because of the unsustainability of meat production and because of the science of nutrition/health.
Just like it is necessary for anarchy, people have to get out of the state of fear and ignorance and get into a state of love, of acceptance of truth, rather then ignoring it, if this doesn't happen at all we won't get anarchy to begin with and we as a species will eventually drive of a cliff.
For anything to change, the realm of causation (the minds of people) needs to change for the realm of effect (the world around us) to change. There is no change to be made in the realm of effect.
For the unsustainability part there could become technological devices to cheaply produce muscle tissue in lab-like circumstances, where no animal after the initial biopsy needs to be involved in, but when the science on healthy nutrition gets accepted i doubt people would feed their children meat and they themselves might perhaps still eat that petri dish meat out of addiction, but even if humans continue to eat meat, meat grown in a petri dish is reasonably vegan friendly.
I mean what's next? Are we going to start granting property rights to animals? How does an animal sign a contract? How does an animal participate in an arbitration?
Yes animals have property rights, they own their own body just like you and i do, in general they don't use that body to turn anything else from nature into useful capital, in other words property, they don't produce much, except birds nests etc. perhaps.
They don't need to sign a contract to own anything, just like you and i don't need to sign a contract to own property, we sign a contract to make a promise, an exchange, not to own property, at most to make use of someone else's property.