Let's make a more comprehensive answer: this question is better than those who get the answer by rote. The so-called "public world" is relative to the "family world" Before Qin Shihuang established the county system, it was a hereditary system of vassal enfeoffment. The world belongs to the ruler, and the official title is hereditary. The world and rights have nothing to do with people, that is, the absolute privatization of the rights system. After the implementation of the county system, officials were selected by the emperor and the court according to their abilities, and promoted according to their achievements, so that ordinary people had the opportunity to participate in governing the country. Relatively speaking, the distribution of rights and the mechanism of rights have the elements of "public participation", so Liu Zongyuan is "the end of the world".

Why are all the other options wrong? Because what we are talking about here is the "county system", the core of which is the right distribution mechanism that rules the world, not the specific question of who is in charge of the people or who is ultimately autocratic, nor how to promulgate laws. So I ruled out other options. It should be noted that "public" and "private" were relative at that time, which is historical materialism. This topic mainly examines students' thinking and analytical ability. To analyze historical issues, we must grasp the core and analyze from the general direction, so as to grasp the essence.

For example, the core of this problem is the public-private relationship of distribution system. Leaving aside historical conditions, it is wrong to unilaterally say that it is more conducive to the centralization of power by the emperor. Who is the subject of ordinary people has nothing to do with how they get "public power", that is, whether the public can participate in the "mechanism" of "public power distribution" (that is, the county system), so they don't choose.