I stand corrected. Given that the link given was to mises.org, I assumed that it was from one of the journals sponsored by them. I have just gone through the paper (albeit rather quickly). I don't see how it supports your contention that Caplan's view is some proven wrong by the paper. Caplan's assertion is that the AS criticism of the mainstream for using cardinal utility is incorrect, because the AS criticism ignores the mainstream methodology of checking that theorems hold true for monotonic transformations. He argues that this methodology means that the mainstream view and the AS view concerning utility are actually not that different, and the AS proponents overstate the difference.  As far as I can tell, the McCulloch paper shows that there is a difference between merely ordering preferences, and looking at all possible monotonic transformations of a cardinal utility function. I don't see how this disproves Caplan's assertion.