Of course, giving a woman money so that she can support a child her way may be a very different thing than the question of whether or not to support ones own child. It's not only a question of support, it's a question of submitting to the woman's authority while still retaining responsibility. I'm sure you have given your ex has no cause to have a problem defering to your approach in any way. I just have reservations when it comes to the question of legal entitlement.
Having the team of the woman and the state replace the man as the ultimate arbiter of who truly owns the product of his work troubles me as a matter of principle. Your position is that it is the lesser of evils to have a man be forced to pay than a child to go hungry. For the greater good and all that. I understand that. Perhaps you are right. Some rights, however, are inalienable, liberty among them. Having the state and the woman become the boss about a man's property and freedom in this one respect may change the whole equation in many other unintended and unwanted respects. For me, the jury is still out.
Let me ask you this....
You have a problem with a the state's interest in protecting the right of life held by the child (by enforcing support orders which house, clothe and feed them) getting in the way of a man's property rights (or right to "liberty"). Does this mean you also take issue with the child's right to life when it comes to a woman's right to privacy (or right to "liberty" when choice is involved)? Which inalienable rights trump other inalienable rights? What is the hierarchy?