Hence, we get the idea that treating people as ends in themselves is treating them as owning themselves. If people are ends in themselves, then they may not be used without their consent. If they may not be used without their consent, then they own themselves. If people own themselves, then they own their talents and abilities. If they own their talents and abilities, then they own the products of their talents and abilities.
Patterned redistribution allows some people to own the products of others' talents and abilities.
Therefore, patterned redistribution allows some people to own other people, and so does not treat them as ends in themselves. The basic idea here is that one doesn't really own oneself if others have a legitimate claim over what one produces by one's talents. And if only I have a legitimate claim over the products of my talents, then I have absolute property rights over them. Hence, Nozick argues for absolute property rights on the basis of the fact that people are ends in themselves. And distributive schemes such as Rawls', which allows people the products of their talents only to the extent that they benefit the less talented treats people as mere means to the enhancement of the less talented.