There are plenty of articles on the internet, but I think what many miss is an explicit contextualization. Hayek (and Friedman) visited Chile during Pinochet's military dictatorship invited by former pupils of Friedman (the so called "Chicago Boys") who had become "economic advisors" in the Pinochet government.

So Hayek was trying to validate the work of Friedman's disciples and his own theories, but as a consequence, he was lending legitimacy to Pinochet himself. On top of that, Hayek also criticized the press in the "democratic" hemisphere for "misrepresenting" Chile's (economic) situation. Friedman got himself in a similar situation for the same reasons, but after the fact he was more self-aware at least.

While I think the involvement of (at least) the CIA in the coup is at this point non-controversial, I do reject the notion that the left has spread that the coup had the explicit objective of putting the Chicago Boys in power and that Chile was "the first neoliberal laboratory". Pinochet's coup, was "simply" an anti-communist fascist regime, of the exact same kind the US favored at the time everywhere: in Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea, Southern Vietnam...

To prove that, one only has to look at the first years of the dictatorship. Pinochet's economic measures were far from liberal, and as a consequence the economic situation after the coup did not improve at all (only inflation, partially). Only then, when Pinochet feared that the social unrest would topple him and got desperate to try anything, did the Chicago Boys get a chance to implement their recipe, which as we all know, eventually caused Chile not only to recover but to progress beyond any other Latin American country for decades until today.

The problem was that, obviously, the success of economic liberalism was used by Pinochet (and then by Reagan and Thatcher, famously) to obtain the legitimacy necessary to justify and carry on with all of his other anti-liberal agendas. This is still the case today in most of the Spanish speaking world, where by association with anti-marxism, and because Friedman-Hayekian libertarians appeared happy to divorce economic liberalism from social liberalism, "libertarianism" has been coopted by the most anti-human, collectivist, ultranationalist, theocratic, militaristic... in short, anti-liberal, sectors of the political spectrum.

Here's one video from Reason, apologetic of Friedman's behavior towards Pinochet and Chile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTU1sxLnlgc that basically says that Friedman was a poor innocent American scholar who took for granted the American framework of social liberties, so he simply could not imagine that morals where important too and was surprised that his actions were "misinterpreted". I guess they don't give a pass to Hayek because he was an Austrian born in 1899 who should have known better than to legitimize a fascist dictatorship with the excuse that he thought it would be "temporary".

One more academic article also apologetic/excusing Hayek: https://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/hope.econ.duke.edu/files/Hayek%20and%20Chile-version11%20%282%29.pdf

Changing subjects, as for Henry George yes, Poverty is the one you want to read, but please for the love of god grab the abridged version because good old Hank didn't have the gift of writing xD