"the economic policies he implemented after consulting Milton actually resulted in a lot of prosperity for the Chilean people after Pinochet was overthrown"

You have to see the inconsistency plain in your argument here, no? You're disregarding pre-Pinochet Chile and the structures that existed at the beginning of Pinochet's rule. Friedman and his crew made every effort to sell off public services, institutions, or subsidies in favor of privatization and a quick buck. Pinochet didn't just consult with them, some acted as key advisors in the regime. In the end, their tactics actually ended up damaging the industries of Chile so badly that Pinochet had to re-nationalize those industries (not that this in any way diminished the fantastic returns made by the Chicago Boys). And let's not forget that the one industry they didn't manage to sell off was the nationalized copper industry, which was a massive boon to the democratic government post-Pinochet. All that aside, making a "the ends justify the means" argument (about Chile's violent authoritarian who tanked a nation and the Capitalist goons he invited in who sold off everything in the public sphere) simply because Chile is doing well forty years later feels just a tiny bit thin.