本文以張佛泉、殷海光與朱堅章三人為例，探討戰後台灣對自由 主義的詮釋。作者指出，張佛泉從英國傳統的「自由即人權」觀點詮 釋自由，強調自由是可以具體點數的個人權利，並嚴格區分公共界域 的邦國與社會，法律與道德，對中華傳統家國一體，法律道德合一之 政治思維，提出針贬；殷海光則在海耶克的啟發之下，以消極自由， 亦即外在的國家鎮制之不存詮釋自由，並在思想及行動上致力於解放 國家干預，經由《自由中國》言論及反對運動的推波助瀾，成為戰後 台灣自由民主運動的思想先導。相較之下，朱堅章對自由主義的詮 釋，則在戰後政治學研究以「權力」為核心概念的脈絡之下，強調法 治之下自由乃是扣緊理性與責任。他從霍布斯自由觀的分析起始，並 進一步將自由與洛克的寬容、基督教金律與儒家的恕道加以調諧。他 們三人的自由主義詮釋，除了其間若干分歧之外，基本上乃是沿循英 美傳統的自由主義脈絡；回顧戰後台灣自由民主運動之發展，主要的 自由主義思想資源，實即此一英美傳統的自由主義思想脈絡。不過， 儘管他們的自由主義詮釋，在思想理論上主要淵源於西方，並且對於 其自由論述與中華政治思維的區隔也多所釐清；然而在知識分子的行 事風格上，卻又透顯出做為真正儒家式知識分子的典型，這似乎也反 映出五四以來在中西文化衝突的夹縫中，知識分子儘管思想西化，然 而行動上卻與自己的文化母體存在複雜關聯的又一例示。

In term of the development of liberal democracy in postwar Taiwan, most of us would accept that liberalism is one of the important propellers. In this paper, I discuss the tripartite interpretations of liberalism, exemplified by three liberal scholars, Chang Fo-Chuan, Yin Hai-Kuang and Chu Chien-Chang. I indicate that Chang criticizes Chinese traditional political thought for the confusion of distinction between public and private life. He interprets liberalism from an Anglo-American tradition perspective, which distinguishes state from society, law from morality, and identifies liberties with rights. Furthermore, I point out Yin adopts a similar approach to interpret liberalism like Chang, and under the influences of F. A. Hayek, he constructs a system of liberal thought based on the concept of “negative liberty” ,and accordingly to oppose the authoritarian dictatorship of government. By contrast, Chu’s interpretation of liberalism stresses the point that liberty, reason and responsibility are congruent under the rule of law. He analyzes Hobbes’s conception of liberty, and further develops his discourse to reconcile Locke’s conception of toleration, Christian Golden Rule and Confucian principle of reciprocity (shu). In conclusion, I indicate, with the exception of some different expositions, all of them interpret liberalism from an Anglo-American tradition perspective, which seems to be the main impulsion in ideological aspect to push the realization of liberal democracy in postwar Taiwan. It may be worth pointing out, though in theory their interpretations of liberalism originate from Western culture, but in action they seem to be influenced deeply by Chinese cultural tradition.