I do not believe hydrocarbons ought to belong to whoever is sitting on top of them– or, far worse, to whoever has the military and economic power to take it, leaving the nearby community with the environmental fallout and societal disruption.

What does any of this have to do with the reality in Bolivia?  We still don't have a global justice movement that would enable the global sharing of wealth, but I would suggest this tactic for the Bolivian social movements:

Instead of demanding continued low fuel prices (a call the secessionist Santa Cruz elites are also comfortable adopting, if only to get participation in their protests), insist on higher prices with all of the proceeds going directly to every Bolivian man, woman, and child.

This benefits, and may unite, every person who uses the normal share of hydrocarbons or less– which will be a majority of the population because the wealthy minority tends to use more, driving up the nominal per capita use.

Not all the poor will uniformly gain.  Some may feel they will lose out, those who use a lot of fuel to make their living (such as Bolivian taxi drivers, whom I consider the greatest people in the world for the treatment of this gringo).  But everyone will have more money to spend.  Anyone who benefits his or her fellows should also benefit, and the economy will be strengthened both now and especially for the inevitable end of cheaply available hydrocarbons.

Instead of just stopping things from getting any worse for people (no rising fuel prices), this is a direct opportunity to make things better for people.  Because the government would distribute the proceeds this could be seen as reducing people's autonomy– but not if it is won for all, universally, and defended through popular struggle.

(I am very interested to know if anyone is suggesting redistribution of hydrocarbon income in Bolivia, and if reaction there is better than in the U.S. when the Carter administration proposed a similar redistributive tax on fossil fuels in the 1970s.)