no offense. but this argument is so circular that it makes no sense.
It is not circular, any more than yours is. It is a loose fish/fast fish problem: the significance of the decision not to purchase insurance depends upon what the surrounding expectation was concerning the obligation to deliver the goods. You read the ebay listing as creating a rule that goods lost in carriage are the responsibility of the buyer. Others rely upon a more general expectation that when a buyer purchases goods, the seller has the obligation to effect delivery. Neither argument is circular; each simply depends on premises the other rejects.
Putting aside the relative value to the OP of a perfect feedback record, the interesting question is whether a seller should be able to shift the risk to the buyer of unreliable carriage in the instance of low priced goods. There is a lot of reasons to say no, since it is the shipper that controls so much of the carriage -- where it is shipped, how it is packed, how legible and indelible the address, etc. -- but on the other hand shifting the risk of loss marginally lowers the cost of low priced goods for those willing to assume the risk.
My instinct is to stick with fast fish, that is, that responsibility does not transer until receipt, since that puts the burden of effective delivery where it would seem to belong. However, I confess that when I have won similarly worded auctions, I always pay for insurance, on the theory that it encourages the seller to ship properly and helps minimize the risk of disputes after the fact. So I respect the OP's sense here that his auction was sufficiently clearly worded, in ebay parlance, to shift the risk.