Panarchy and anarcho-syndicalism

For the past couple of months or so I've been oscillitating between anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism. The problems with mutualism: people having to submit to the blind forces of the marketplace - it is also quite evident to me that markets are imposed onto people and that private property in the means of production is another form of state supported privilege, just like the money monopoly or patents and so on. But, the one thing that I did like about mutualism was the idea of panarchy. In the midst of economic equality (have to emphasize that so as to not be confused with an ancap) everyone being able to pay for their own protection and defense, not having protection be imposed onto them (which obviously occurs for the sake of protecting privilege), I think that would solve the issue of crime within an anarchist society, leading to the law of equal liberty. Sort of like in a situation where only one person has a gun everyone is shot, but if everyone has a gun, everyone's too scared to pull the trigger first - in the same way, if everyone had their own protection agency and in the midst of economic equality, that would mean power would be evenly distributed throughout society and no one would be able to impose their will onto another person. And you would think that in a panarchistic situation, everyone would end up at war with everyone else - but that is not so. As Murray Rothbard said (he was a douche on economic issues, but social issues and also foreign policy, he's alright by me), the only reason why states can go to war, is because they have the ability to tax their citizens through violence, thus without the ability to tax, then defense associations wouldn't be able to afford to go to war, thereby having to resolve their disputes via an agreed upon third party. Now, in an anarcho-syndicalist or anarchist collectivist wage system, wouldn't people be able to buy protection also? Why isn't panarchy promoted amongst anarchists of this stripe?

I've read a lot of social anarchists thoughts on how to resolve crime within an anarchistic society, but it never seems to be satisfactory. You have james guillame for instance, supporting the idea of militias - but I'm sorry, I seriously think that would lead to tyranny of the majority. If it were the 1930s in the south in America and I were black and lived in an anarchist society where communes had a police, I don't think I would be very well off. Or let's say I'm in some part of America also that is full of religious fundamentalists and I'm the only atheist. Some anarchists say: "Oh, but you have the ability to not be apart of the commune!" How though? If a commune had a police, if the members of the commune didn't like me and thought I was a threat for being an atheist for instance, I don't think they would allow me to leave. I think they would arrest me, don't you? But, if I were able to pay someone else to protect me, since I would be incapable of doing such a thing on my own, then I would be protected against the tyranny of the majority. Also, I mean, after all, the only reason why capitalists can maintain private property in the means of production, is because they have the state, a monopoly on violence to protect and defend their claim - if that monopoly were to be broken, if there was panarchy, no one would be able to make such a claim and the means of production would be able to be collectively controlled.

Just wondering how other anarchists feel about panarchy, whether they feel it could exist in an anarcho-syndicalist society and what not.