It would also certainly have to be federated.

There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm.

I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don't think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.

I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.

No, they certainly do not. Every time I've gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.

No sane anarchist is advocating for the collapse of society, or for law enforcement to disappear overnight. Anarchists generally advocate for new anarchic systems to be built alongside our current system, so that if/when our current system begins to collapse, the new ones will already be in place to replace it. This idea is called "dual power", or more generally, "prefigurative politics". It is obviously not an easy thing to do, but I think it's worth trying; we should always be trying to build a better world.

...there are A LOT of criminals out there...

This is absolutely the case, though I see this as an indictment on our current system more than anything. The anarchist position is that most crime is a result of people's basic needs (food, shelter, physical or mental healthcare, etc.) not being met, rather than a result of that person being innately "bad". You seem to at least partly agree with this position:

...way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing.

Anarchists aim to have everyone's basic needs met, regardless of how much or how little they contribute back to society. This of course won't entirely eliminate antisocial behavior, so we will also need some form of anarchic community defence to intervene in such cases.

This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.

And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.

So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don't have for survival in the short term.

It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.

I'm not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.

I'm not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer

It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.

People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.

Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it's social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.

Then their ideology completely falls apart. Lol.

They are cast away from the community. There's no common ground. It's impossible to mee their needs when their needs is going against everyone else's needs.

They're free to go elsewhere. Maybe they'll like Japan.

Anarchists are allowed to vote. What are you talking about?

Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge of the lynchings according to their isolated, self-serving, sheltered, and privileged reasonings in order to maintain their status and authority? Or do you think there is some stupid super intelligence governor floating out there somewhere we need to appease for some stupid reason so it’ll invite us to the private party it’s throwing that doesn’t like it when we do that?