When Nozick says distributive justice 'marks a shift from the classical liberal notion of self ownership to a notion of property rights in others', is this a fair criticism of Rawls and distributive justice?
Not a specialist in Ethics, but it looks to me like the fundamental issue here is whether everyone has rights only over himself (the classical liberal position) or whether some people have rights over others (Rawls's position). Rawls has to be saying that some people have rights over others because the strategically rational set of principles of justice that we would agree to in the original position should involve redistribution of income and other similar schemes of social welfare. Consequently, this means that I have a right over other people insofar as I have a claim upon putting the money they earn by their time and talent to use in funding such schemes.
I don't know that that's Nozick's criticism of Rawls, actually. But it is a fair characterization of Rawl's position.